im still not seeing desertion. im seeing running away from an overwhelming enemy. all we have is his word that the rebellion apprehended them but no details. and he hasn't been back to answer or provide. I even messaged him asking to. no reply, and hasn't been back.

in movies all the time we see heroes running away from a large enemy force. we even see it in ep. 4. han chases 2 storm troopers in the death star, into a room filled with them and runs. much the same situation. was that desertion? no.

thinking about it does the rebellion really have the resources to chase down two people in the galaxy? would they really spare the money and manpower for this?! running away from a.star destroyer when armed with a Nerf gun? if they didn't want to be there I doubt the resource strapped rebellion would chase them across a hostile galaxy.

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

Military power has little to do with defining a country as "First World". Norway has one of the highest living standards in the world and some of the best health services in the world, and its ability to project military force around the world is for practical purposes nill. Russia during both WWI and WWII was pretty much a small elite ruling over a million square miles of peasant farms. But they brought Napolean and the German army to its knees with each conscript picking up the gun from their fallen comrade and taking their turn to get a bullet or two out before they died. It's a complete conflation of terms to mix the two together. Furthermore, by any contemporary standard, America was one of the most militarily powerful nations prior to WW1 as well. A bit lacking in navy, basically, but pretty much unassailable regardless.

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.

I agree that it wasn't on much of a military footing prior to WW1, but again, I don't really see what this has to do with the topic at hand anyway. A poster said "1st world countries" weren't going to be executing deserters and that America hadn't executed anyone after 1945 for this. I pointed out that it was still a "1st world country" prior to 1945 as well. That you want to re-purpose the term "1st world country" to mean militarily powerful doesn't impact what the OP meant or my response.

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.

Okay, firstly, my choice *is* a valid one. Can someone get hit point blank in the face with a blaster rifle and keep fighting? Well no, not in my game and the rules don't suggest that they can. It's a narrative system with wounds reflecting weariness and light damage, etc. and critical rolls having clear descriptions. If someone shoots another person in my game for 4 wounds and they had 12 wounds left on their track, I don't describe it as "you shoot him directly in the face, but you need to do it twice more before it affects them". I describe it as "you graze them on the side as they roll awkwardly out of the way - they can't keep dodging like this for long". So kindly don't tell me that my choice isn't valid because "realism - just saying".

Suspension of disbelief is not an On-Off thing where because you have a weapon we don't know how to build ourselves, or the setting has FTL, you must immediately suspend any requirement for other areas to make sense - especially politics and human relations. It would make my game significantly less appealing to me if I took the attitude of "this setting has laser swords, so lets throw out what seems militarily and historically natural to me as well". And the same is true of many other players who like verisimilitude.

EDIT: Nor, btw, was I "arguing for realism". The post of mine you quoted was explicitly me saying that different people have different tastes and pointing out that neither approach violated canon as we see so little of the rebellion. The only one dismissing someone's game style as not "valid" here, is actually you.

in movies all the time we see heroes running away from a large enemy force. we even see it in ep. 4. han chases 2 storm troopers in the death star, into a room filled with them and runs. much the same situation. was that desertion? no.

I wish that I could get my players to run away from superior odds on occasion. They seem to treat it like a computer game some days where everything is level appropriate and placed for them to kill. So I either back down (rare) or they end up dead or broke or in prison and then whine about how unfair things are. Well yes - nobody made you attack them!

in movies all the time we see heroes running away from a large enemy force. we even see it in ep. 4. han chases 2 storm troopers in the death star, into a room filled with them and runs. much the same situation. was that desertion? no.

I wish that I could get my players to run away from superior odds on occasion. They seem to treat it like a computer game some days where everything is level appropriate and placed for them to kill. So I either back down (rare) or they end up dead or broke or in prison and then whine about how unfair things are. Well yes - nobody made you attack them!

I have the same problem with one of my groups...but to fair, they can occasionally pull off some insanely lucky victories.

Although, perhaps that only serves to encourage them further in their madness

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.

Okay, firstly, my choice *is* a valid one. Can someone get hit point blank in the face with a blaster rifle and keep fighting? Well no, not in my game and the rules don't suggest that they can. It's a narrative system with wounds reflecting weariness and light damage, etc. and critical rolls having clear descriptions. If someone shoots another person in my game for 4 wounds and they had 12 wounds left on their track, I don't describe it as "you shoot him directly in the face, but you need to do it twice more before it affects them". I describe it as "you graze them on the side as they roll awkwardly out of the way - they can't keep dodging like this for long". So kindly don't tell me that my choice isn't valid because "realism - just saying".Suspension of disbelief is not an On-Off thing where because you have a weapon we don't know how to build ourselves, or the setting has FTL, you must immediately suspend any requirement for other areas to make sense - especially politics and human relations. It would make my game significantly less appealing to me if I took the attitude of "this setting has laser swords, so lets throw out what seems militarily and historically natural to me as well". And the same is true of many other players who like verisimilitude.EDIT: Nor, btw, was I "arguing for realism". The post of mine you quoted was explicitly me saying that different people have different tastes and pointing out that neither approach violated canon as we see so little of the rebellion. The only one dismissing someone's game style as not "valid" here, is actually you.

in regards to this specific topic, we don't know if it was desertion or not. did they plan in coming back? judging by that they didn't roll new characters, I think so. but the OP won't tell us. so we're all jumping to conclusions because we don't know enough about the situation. all we know Is they ran away from an overwhelming enemy. that is at best cowardice. morally grey or not, executing them for that is what Stalin andHitler did in the eastern froInt. morally grey or not, the rebellion isn't the Soviet union.

im not trying to judge another table, or argue what is proper punishment for desertion historically. I've states out of that argument. I've stated out of how the rebellion would execute people. im trying to keep it to the OP,and running away from a machine gun nest when you have a spork should not be a crime punishable by death. especially not in a game where the object is to get together with friends and have fun

in movies all the time we see heroes running away from a large enemy force. we even see it in ep. 4. han chases 2 storm troopers in the death star, into a room filled with them and runs. much the same situation. was that desertion? no.

I wish that I could get my players to run away from superior odds on occasion. They seem to treat it like a computer game some days where everything is level appropriate and placed for them to kill. So I either back down (rare) or they end up dead or broke or in prison and then whine about how unfair things are. Well yes - nobody made you attack them!

I know the feeling, my group of 50 XP decided to go wampa hunting last night... 3 critical hits and their ship nearly destroyed.

Back to the topic...simply running away from an overwhelming enemy is tactical retreat, not cowardice. However—and it's a big however—the OP did state that two of these guys ran away and left their teammates stranded. This is cowardice & desertion, lying to your men so you can leave them behind and save your own skin.

Now, that said...I could envision a member world of the Alliance upholding the idea of "executing cowards." However, you've gotta consider who the Rebel Alliance is made up of. The Chandrilan & Alderaanian resistance groups were huge contributors to the Alliance. Would either of these groups support a death penalty? The Rebel Alliance lauds the Jedi and strives to hold true to the ideals of the Old Republic. Would the Jedi kill deserters?

There is is too much cultural stuff going on in the Alliance to make any sort of analogy between them and any real-world historical group. They stand against oppression, tyranny, slavery, and despotism. They hold the ideals of peace & the pursuit of happiness as paramount. This doesn't seem like the organization that executes cowards.

I could see a politically-charged scene where various Alliance members debate about how to handle this. People like the Chandrilans would be firm on "stripping them of their military rank," while maybe someone from a more militant group (especially if that group was one of the ones affected by the desertion) calling for their heads. Yet a third group, maybe headed by Bothans or Corellians, might try and sign these individuals on as privateers.

so, kinda like a parallel to this thread. im tots like the alderaans.

I actually was saying it was valid. that wasn't sarcasm. just pointing out the realism paradox.

Ah. Sorry about that - I read it as being sarcastic about wanting realism in a Star Wars game. My apologies!

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.

Wow what a tangent.

I was using "1st world" so I wouldn't have to type a much longer explanation. I wasn't using them as levels of development but the old West vs. Communism vs Other divisions, so please don't put words in my mouth. Take a look at the "history" discussed in my link to see what I was referring to.

I think you may have been reading my post from the Three Worlds perspective (?), something else?, not what I was referring to since you also mentioned New World and Old World which has nothing at all to do with the history of the Cold War 1st/2nd/3rd world model. I'm a child of the 70's/80's so the first uses of the terms from my childhood are apparently what has stuck with me. Not the morphing into more economic divisions. I think you are missing out on the history of the terms. They came about during the Cold War and were not a development from New/Old World at all. Third World.

In my analogy, I stand by my reasoning that the Alliance would be most compareable to the 1st world democratic West when considering politics and moralities of such things as executions for desertion. The 2nd world Soviet Union I believe would have shot deserters by the battalion if WW3 had broken out.

I didn't "insert" the 2nd world term, someone came up with that before me. I just didn't leave the historical term out.

I think everyone, including yourself, got the jist even if I didn't clearly explain which version of 1st world I was using. I used a very general term to get my point across quickly. I think I did, but apparently with a Despair which created a long tangent about old Cold War titles which had little to do with the discussion at hand. :)

Added a couple smiley faces, indents, and some edits once I got calmed down a bit.

I think everyone, including yourself, got the jist even if I didn't clearly explain which version of 1st world I was using.

I understood perfectly well what you meant. I put the extra historical explanations in because we were having a discussion about history and I thought the clarification of terms and the history behind them would be interesting - I wrote explicitly that I was putting it in as an interesting aside. Twice in your posts now you have told me how you 'think I am missing something' or 'should learn about history. That's actually quite patronizing to someone who you don't know how much they may or may not know about the subject. If I have made any factual errors or omissions then by all means point them out but please don't respond to a supported argument with vague comments about how I should learn about a subject. Implying someone needs to learn more about a subject as a response to a factually supported chain of reasoning is not in any way a rebuttal or tells me anything. It just makes people feel that you're claiming superior wisdom and implying that I'm wrong without showing anything.

In terms of your actual argument, it boils down to this:

In my analogy, I stand by my reasoning that the Alliance would be most compareable to the 1st world democratic West when considering politics and moralities of such things as executions for desertion.

That is not reasoning (which is a chain of logic), that is assertion. You state that you draw this parallel but do not support whether it is accurate or not. It can be accurate as the setting is fictional and vague enough on the details of the Rebellion that your view on it doesn't contradict anything we see on film. But there is nothing in your position to say that it should be accurate. Without that latter justification you cannot start talking to other people telling them their own take on it is wrong because it doesn't match yours. And yes - that is what you do when you reply to someone telling them why something isn't so. Either view of the Rebellion is valid given the aforementioned room in canon to fill in the gaps. However, I am giving reasons why I view the more nuanced version as preferable to me (and I would hope a number of others) because it is more believable.

Believability is something many people look for and value. And a more nuanced take on the Rebellion has that for several reasons already given. Firstly, given that the Rebellion is an alliance of a wide variety of species and planets, many of which would be old Seperatist planets that were forcibly conquered by the Emperor, it seems unlikely that the Alliance would be an analogue of the USA today. Secondly, any simple black and white take on the Alliance is inherently going to seem less believable to people because we have all learnt that real history is messy and cluttered and not black and white. Only children's history books take a good guys / bad guys take on the past and so any take on the Rebel Alliance that is similarly "clean" is going to lack verisimilitude, all else being equal, to one that has greater variety and moral uncertainty.

Thirdly - and I have supported this repeatedly - whether or not the Alliance is like the USA in terms of democratic institutions and development, that does not indicate that it wont execute deserters. I have argued and given reasons why I think this, that the reduced punishments for desertion in today's USA is more to do with the fact that it is a long time since the USA has been militarily threatened. It is correlation, not causation. The USA used to execute deserters from time to time, it used to flog them and tattoo or brand them (much more common than execution). And the difference between the USA when it did these things and now when it doesn't, is demonstrably not one of democratic institution or relative affluence. Indeed, I can make a cogent argument that democratic institutions in the USA were stronger pre-1945 than they are today given the homogenization of the media and subsequent watering-down of the US Constitution. Therefore I look elsewhere to a more obvious difference - whether the USA is on a full war footing and / or faces actual threats to its governments existence / stability.

In instances where the USA has been subjected to such threats or on a full war footing, it has behaved in this way despite still being a "1st world" country with the same democratic institutions and structure that it has today. And if you are going to draw parallels between the Rebel Alliance and the USA or other modern Western country, then you cannot legitimately draw that parallel between the Alliance and those countries in peacetime / where its only wars are ones of adventurism. It has to be a parallel to those countries when they were under threat and / or on full war footing. Because both of those are true of the Rebel Alliance.

Ergo, whilst it is perfectly possible and valid to portray the Rebellion as you describe because there is nothing on screen to contradict it, a different approach is more believable, requires fewer extra reasons to dismiss the likelihood of such behaviour from various worlds in the Alliance and better matches our own experience of history. It's quite easy to rationalise a sanitized Rebellion if one wishes in ways that will make it plausible. If I began from a position of "I want the Rebels to be Good Guys", then I would have no great difficulty doing that and indeed if anyone wants to know how I would make such a Rebellion plausible and give it verisimilitude, I am happy to help. But I see good reasons why a different approach arises more naturally if you don't start with that goal and I haven't yet heard any reason from anyone why what I've reasoned out is flawed, just assertions that the Rebel Alliance isn't like that.

Added a couple smiley faces, indents, and some edits once I got calmed down a bit.

I re-read my earlier response to you and whilst it wasn't intended to come across as patronizing - I genuinely meant the clarification of "1st world"'s origins as an interesting note, I realize it could have come across that way. That wasn't intended and sorry if so. I simply like accuracy in terminology and the modern re-purposing of the term (I consider 1950's to be modern. ) is something that vaguely bothers me. To be clear, when I first heard the term in this sense, I found it vaguely offensive. Essentially, you watch Western TV and you hear them call themselves the "First World" and your country the "Third World", it's pretty dismissive. Like hearing a rich bunch of people call themselves the alpha countries and refer to the rest as the beta countries. I don't think many people in the West realize how arrogant referring to themselves as "the First World" sounds. I don't think most have ever even thought about it.

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.

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.

These quotes above are what got my blood boiling. If you think I was patronizing, then please note how this above was too. You were telling me how I was wrong in my use of these terms. When I wasn't. You were telling me how they can and have been used wrong. That doesn't mean I was using the terms wrong. You lumped me in with the others who have used these original Cold War terms wrongly then chastised me for it. I tried even with wiki links to point out the actual meaning of these terms and explained how I hadn't used them or thought of them in the way you thought I did. I mentioned history with quotes in my post since you seemed to be giving me a history lesson even though I believe I wasn't deserving of one at all (in this instance, I'm sure I need lots of lessons in other areas).

Firstly, given that the Rebellion is an alliance of a wide variety of species and planets, many of which would be old Seperatist planets that were forcibly conquered by the Emperor, it seems unlikely that the Alliance would be an analogue of the USA today.

The US began as a melting pot of people from many different cultures and nations. They were once "seperatists" against a King also. Ignoring the similar history, I agree that the modern US is NOT a good analogue for a motley collection of rebels. Please note that I never once said that. I was actually saying Alliance = the 1st World (aka the West, NATO, its allies, not the slant on this term you were using) and using ONE of those nations of the 1st world (the US) as an example of having performed only one execution for desertion in modern history.

Secondly, any simple black and white take on the Alliance is inherently going to seem less believable to people because we have all learnt that real history is messy and cluttered and not black and white. Only children's history books take a good guys / bad guys take on the past and so any take on the Rebel Alliance that is similarly "clean" is going to lack verisimilitude, all else being equal, to one that has greater variety and moral uncertainty.

I think you missed my black and white point. I agree that if Star Wars was "real", it would NOT be a simple matter of good vs bad guys. There WOULD be lots of gray areas. My point was the actual Star Wars genre IS very black and white, very much so Good vs Bad guys. So in an RPG recreating "Star Wars" there SHOULD be a very solid line between black and white, good and bad. I think Dante protrayed this above pretty clearly with, "I don't play the real world rpg, I play the Star Wars RPG.".

It's quite easy to rationalise a sanitized Rebellion if one wishes in ways that will make it plausible.

Yep.

In instances where the USA has been subjected to such threats or on a full war footing, it has behaved in this way despite still being a "1st world" country with the same democratic institutions and structure that it has today. And if you are going to draw parallels between the Rebel Alliance and the USA or other modern Western country, then you cannot legitimately draw that parallel between the Alliance and those countries in peacetime / where its only wars are ones of adventurism. It has to be a parallel to those countries when they were under threat and / or on full war footing. Because both of those are true of the Rebel Alliance.

I DID give an example of the US during a war. I used WW2 as example, quoting myself, " the worst world war of human history". There was only one execution for desertion by the US during this war and it was under very, very limited circumstances. Reading the events leading up to it shows that it was almost an accident. No one really wanted to do it, but they were forced to by the circumstances.

I re-read my earlier response to you and whilst it wasn't intended to come across as patronizing - I genuinely meant the clarification of "1st world"'s origins as an interesting note, I realize it could have come across that way. That wasn't intended and sorry if so. I simply like accuracy in terminology and the modern re-purposing of the term (I consider 1950's to be modern. ) is something that vaguely bothers me. To be clear, when I first heard the term in this sense, I found it vaguely offensive. Essentially, you watch Western TV and you hear them call themselves the "First World" and your country the "Third World", it's pretty dismissive. Like hearing a rich bunch of people call themselves the alpha countries and refer to the rest as the beta countries. I don't think many people in the West realize how arrogant referring to themselves as "the First World" sounds. I don't think most have ever even thought about it.

You based your response to me upon a different interpretation of what the terms mean. I was in no way intending a slight against any country by using the terms in their original meaning. Using the original Cold War terms it is more about alliances and less if anything about economic development. 1st = the West and Allies, 2nd = Communists and Allies, 3rd = Others non-aligned with 1st or 2nd. If others have broadened or misapplied what these terms mean to be something else then please don't blame me when I use the terms as they were actually intended.

Perhaps in hindsight the Cold War terms should have used something other then numbered titles so that people would not misjudge their use as a ranking system. It wasn't meant to be First, Middle, and Last place.

Knass I could be wrong (often am), but I think the New/Old World connection to these more modern terms is false. I think you (and possibly others) are saying the 1st/2nd/3rd terms developed from these old terms and thus use that to show how the terms are patronizing. This, in my opinion, would be an error. For there to be said connection Old World would need to become 1st World and New World the 2nd World. The Old World was Europe + Asia. The 1st World (the West and allies) includes nations from Europe, Asia, North America, South America, plus Australia. The New World was just North & South America. The 2nd World includes nations from Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. See my point? There's no logical connection in my opinion. I think some professor or political pundit somewhere needs a lashing for first connecting these dots.

If I could make a mini-time travel jump, I would go back and insert NATO/Western for 1st World, Warsaw Pact/Communists for 2nd World, and Other for 3rd World in my arguments and saved the stress on my eyes, fingers, and blood pressure.

Take my olive branch please. Please see how I didn't mean to offend and used these terms in a completely different way then you read them.

The Alliance to Restore the Republic (full name used intentionally) is very idealistic. They are as purely white hat as the Empire is intended to be evil. The AtRtR refuses membership to forces that will not align themselves to their morality even if such forces would be militarily useful (like some Separatist holdouts and pirate groups). They are not interested in victory at any cost and believe in maintaining their ideals over attaining a military advantage. There were always those that disagreed (like Garm Bel Iblis), and they were allowed to leave and even take extensive military assets with them.

The Alliance executing members for 'desertion' or any reason is patently absurd on its face. I very much doubt the Alliance executes captured Imperials, but they're going to kill people who risked everything to face down the Empire?

Yeah, right.

You can play Star Wars with shades of gray and moral ambiguity, and that is perfectly acceptable. It even sounds fun, but let's not act like there is any legitimate ambiguity in the subject material. Star Wars paints a stark line between good and evil. Pretending that it doesn't is simply disingenuous.

From what I have been seeing, I think there is a consensus from most people that the Alliance just doesn't holds itself up to a high standard, but one that Represents itself as the True Successor to the Old Republic and what is the best Civilized Galaxy. So that the concept of a Summary Execution of anyone is both absurd and out of character.

I will interject that, Execution for crimes against the Alliance is not unfathomable. It would be rare and would require a Trial. Not a simple affair, but a serious Proceeding. Also that Summary Executions are not to be tolerated and would be investigated as Murder.

The Alliance would call for Due Process for its Members and even for Captured Imperials.

There would be a Process to which a Person is put on Trial, Convicted, Sentenced, and given the chance to Appeal. All of which would take time before someone would receive their punishment which could include, being Executed. Which does leave room for other types of punishment.

On top of that to justify the Sentence of Death would have its own set of requirements that would need to be satisfied in order to get Execution being available as punishment.

Which gives the Alliance Strength in that they can uphold their Laws and that in a Civilized Manner they can appropriately punish people.

I think the Alliance would handle it like the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers (the book):

Since every member is a volunteer there is no need to run after them if they quit on their own.

Should they turn up they will be arrested and tried, but given only small punishment. Nothing worth running away for for the rest of your life.

Commiting a crime or running away and leaving your comrades in harms way is another matter entirely. And the PCs in this case did the later. For that even the Alliance has to hand out a fitting punishment, leaving your comrades back to die is not acceptable.

Depending on who is the commander of their outfit said punishment can vary greatly.

Back to the topic...simply running away from an overwhelming enemy is tactical retreat, not cowardice. However—and it's a big however—the OP did state that two of these guys ran away and left their teammates stranded. This is cowardice & desertion, lying to your men so you can leave them behind and save your own skin.

Now, that said...I could envision a member world of the Alliance upholding the idea of "executing cowards." However, you've gotta consider who the Rebel Alliance is made up of. The Chandrilan & Alderaanian resistance groups were huge contributors to the Alliance. Would either of these groups support a death penalty? The Rebel Alliance lauds the Jedi and strives to hold true to the ideals of the Old Republic. Would the Jedi kill deserters?

There is is too much cultural stuff going on in the Alliance to make any sort of analogy between them and any real-world historical group. They stand against oppression, tyranny, slavery, and despotism. They hold the ideals of peace & the pursuit of happiness as paramount. This doesn't seem like the organization that executes cowards.

I could see a politically-charged scene where various Alliance members debate about how to handle this. People like the Chandrilans would be firm on "stripping them of their military rank," while maybe someone from a more militant group (especially if that group was one of the ones affected by the desertion) calling for their heads. Yet a third group, maybe headed by Bothans or Corellians, might try and sign these individuals on as privateers.

they ran away in the face of an overwhelming enemy that they weren't equipped to engage. a shuttle vs. a star destroyer is suicide. that, I put in the GM. and its something I wish my players would do more often. I've been generous and call it cowardice, but it does scream retreat to me too, but no order for retreat was given, so I've been calling it cowardice. in a retreat, units lose men. it can happen. im not even sure they we're given orders to attack it. look at his wording. he assumed they would give close support while he made it to explosives. what explosives? why weren't they given a strategy? did they leave behind an entire company, or did theyencounter it while it was just two shuttles on a routine patrol or on their way to base? we don't have enough info for the desertion charge. they left behind a couple of players who decided to fight a star destroyer. if I want my players to run away from a fight where they'll die, I shouldn't punish than when they do.

as for the rebellion killing deserters, I've been trying to stay out of it, but I've been thinking about it. this isn't our world, so I don't think we should.make comparisons to our world. so lets look at the rebellion. the galaxy is hugs, and all hostile territory. the galaxy i ruled by the empire. anywhere they do operations, they risk losing resources. people. money. equipment. informants. Droids. weapons.armor. they risk losing contact networks. ranking officers. ect... they don't have a lot of resources to begin with. that's one of the themes of this book. I could see them.hunting down a ranking officer, or an intelligence officer. someone who knows something gnat can hurt them. but risking all that for a couple of grunts. they'd be more interested in the shuttle than the men. and odds are that shuttle doesn't contain info that's really damning to them. maybe the location of a star destroyer that is much less risky to just move.

Alright. School took me by surprise so I haven't been able to reply for awhile. Honestly starting to regret going into this masters program. I should address several issues that I may have left out.

I am one of the PCs, not the GM. I was one of the PCs that was left to die. But being so handsome and savvy, I saved the day. (The other fella might have helped a little...)

The mission we were given was to slow the enemy approach to allow for an evacuation. The Rebellion wasn't sending us to our deaths, they knew the odds and were fully willing to retreat in the face of overwhelming odds. I thought it was fairly clear. Maybe the other two did not.

When the deserters were given the order to fight, the GM made the mistake of not actually phrasing it as an order. Thinking back on it, it sounded incredibly reasonable just to say "no thanks" in response. The GM is a little new at GMing Age of Rebellion. I offered him some pointers on this. He might still have the Penny Arcade philosophy of "they aren't MY party, they are THE party. The enemy." He has been GM for Pathfinder and that does tend to reinforce an adversarial discourse. We have discussed this issue at length and he admits that it does tend to carry over, but is willing to try things a bit different.

The Rebellion, I think, would execute deserters. Almost all governments do or have at one point or another. Those that do not have a death sentence for desertion simply have life imprisonment for desertion. Considering the Rebel Alliance has neither a permanent base of operations for a prison and extremely limited resources, life imprisonment is not an option. It's like game theory: the correct answer isn't necessarily the best or friendliest answer. The Alliance may wish to take the moral high ground, but it must also be pragmatic. Regardless, it is the GM's call. I suggested perhaps giving them a dangerous mission for redemption. I don't know if he will heed my advice, but I hope so.

This game is really about funny grey areas. For example: Jimmy. Jimmy is an NPC who we have press ganged into service as our copilot. He really just wants to go home. Started out the campaign as a human shield. Absolutely terrified of the psychopathic medical droid named B-R5RB

Due to the circumstances, the Rebellion cannot cut us loose without putting itself at a significant risk. We know too much. But yeah, that was the joke when they left. "Sooo... Edge of the Empire?"

Anyway, I come from a political science background (unemployable I know), but I am familiar with game theory. The pilot deserter honestly had the thought: "If this rebel base goes down, the damage could spread to other rebel cells. The Rebellion is in serious danger! I have to warn them! I can't do that if I'm dead." As sad and angry as I was at the time about being abandoned, he did make the correct, rational choice. I can't fault him for that. The other deserter wanted to high tail it back to Nar Shadaa.

We aren't a super serious group in any of our games. I once played an insane necromancer wizard who published his own pornographic, necrophiliac romance novels. Lich Love: Fifty Shades of Grey Flesh. I'm not special: we are all twisted individuals. Everyone was laughing at the crazy turn of events, and everyone is still good friends. I was just so baffled by the turn of events, that I had to post it. Almost a full Henderson, if anyone gets that reference.

Regardless: good times.

The Rebellion, I think, would execute deserters.

See lots of arguments for and against this concept in the pages above, after you.....deserted us.

If they weren't ordered to stand and fight the rebellion can't really justify punishing them for leaving when it got too hot. I literally quit an online campagin once because the GM was courtmartialing people for failing to carry out ungiven orders.

Countries that do not have corporal punishment do not kill deserters. Do we reslly think the Rebels are worse than the French? Really? The French?

The Rebellion, I think, would execute deserters.

See lots of arguments for and against this concept in the pages above, after you.....deserted us.

Again, not my fault. School decided to get difficult all at once.

I have read through them. Honestly not my intent to create this sort of debate.

If they weren't ordered to stand and fight the rebellion can't really justify punishing them for leaving when it got too hot. I literally quit an online campagin once because the GM was courtmartialing people for failing to carry out ungiven orders.

Yeah, I brought that up with the GM. I think he's going for the "redemption mission" approach. Could be fun.

Back to the topic...simply running away from an overwhelming enemy is tactical retreat, not cowardice. However—and it's a big however—the OP did state that two of these guys ran away and left their teammates stranded. This is cowardice & desertion, lying to your men so you can leave them behind and save your own skin.

Now, that said...I could envision a member world of the Alliance upholding the idea of "executing cowards." However, you've gotta consider who the Rebel Alliance is made up of. The Chandrilan & Alderaanian resistance groups were huge contributors to the Alliance. Would either of these groups support a death penalty? The Rebel Alliance lauds the Jedi and strives to hold true to the ideals of the Old Republic. Would the Jedi kill deserters?

There is is too much cultural stuff going on in the Alliance to make any sort of analogy between them and any real-world historical group. They stand against oppression, tyranny, slavery, and despotism. They hold the ideals of peace & the pursuit of happiness as paramount. This doesn't seem like the organization that executes cowards.

I could see a politically-charged scene where various Alliance members debate about how to handle this. People like the Chandrilans would be firm on "stripping them of their military rank," while maybe someone from a more militant group (especially if that group was one of the ones affected by the desertion) calling for their heads. Yet a third group, maybe headed by Bothans or Corellians, might try and sign these individuals on as privateers.

they ran away in the face of an overwhelming enemy that they weren't equipped to engage. a shuttle vs. a star destroyer is suicide. that, I put in the GM. and its something I wish my players would do more often. I've been generous and call it cowardice, but it does scream retreat to me too, but no order for retreat was given, so I've been calling it cowardice. in a retreat, units lose men. it can happen. im not even sure they we're given orders to attack it. look at his wording. he assumed they would give close support while he made it to explosives. what explosives? why weren't they given a strategy? did they leave behind an entire company, or did theyencounter it while it was just two shuttles on a routine patrol or on their way to base? we don't have enough info for the desertion charge. they left behind a couple of players who decided to fight a star destroyer. if I want my players to run away from a fight where they'll die, I shouldn't punish than when they do.

The explosives were needed to obstruct the approach of several AT-ATs. The base was ordered to evacuate, I can't stress that point enough. Our job was to slow the enemy approach and cover the retreat. There were plenty spacecraft on both sides of the fight, so the shuttle was not hugely outnumbered.

The pilot deserter honest to gods thought that staying would endanger other Rebel cells unless someone warned them about what had occurred. He did not think the evacuation was going fast enough (granted he was hardly qualified to know that) and thus made the jump to hyperspace. He voluntarily rejoined the base's survivors. I figure he should be given leniency.

Also: was never given a direct order.