If they ran off and rejoined, that would be cowardice in the situation. Sounds like these guys had to be tracked down and captured. They deserted.

Doubt the Rebellion would kill for that though. They likely wouldn't even track them down (no resources for that). Strip them from rank and dismiss them from service. They're not likely to defect to the Empire.

Death sentance would be more likely for someone like a traitor to the effort. Someone that allied with the Empire to help defeat the rebels.

Real-life military organizations do not execute soldiers because of muddled orders. If an officer gives his men conflicting information and responsibilities, those same men aren't dragged behind the chemical shed and shot an hour after the battle ends.

Also, just FYI, the actual number of times that soldiers have been executed for cowardice and desertion in actual real-life are surprisingly few and far between. Before the modern era it was virtually impossible to find much less punish deserters who simply disappeared from your camp in the middle of the night or ran during battlefield confusion. In the modern era, it rarely happened, because rates of desertion decreased dramatically due to esprit de corps, propaganda, and better command-and-control.

There are two major "Fight or Die" episodes which come dramatically to mind: Soviet Russia in 1941 and Nazi Germany in 1945. The Red Army launched a disastrous offensive in 1941 right into the teeth of German invasion. Faced with a front line in danger of collapse, the NKVD and other Soviet police agencies routinely used summary execution to encourage "bravery in the face of the enemy." Bear in mind this behavior was simply part and parcel of one of the bloodiest regimes known to human history.

Then we have Nazi Germany in 1945. Germany was, as most people know, collapsing rapidly. Whether it was actually happening or not the SS and their leadership believed that desertion was weakening the army, so there were SS units patrolling Germany for 'deserters' which usually meant anyone of military age without a good excuse to be in uniform. They hung those they found. Again, this is Nazi Germany.

By comparison, the number of people executed for desertion or cowardice among the Allies, Japan, or China in World War II is phenomenally low. Even when you look back at World War I, a war known for its general disregard for human life, you have only a few incidences, most notoriously the French mutinies in 1917 and 198. Around 600 men were executed. Yes, that's a lot, but not compared to the actual number who deserted.

So, yes, execution for desertion is very unusual in real life except when practiced by the most violent regimes imaginable who were, at the time, engaged in struggles for their very existence.

I don't care how many "shades of gray" are in your campaign. If the Rebel Alliance is executing people for desertion (which it would be argued that the pilot in this instance did not actually commit), then how are they better than the Empire?

If they ran off and rejoined, that would be cowardice in the situation. Sounds like these guys had to be tracked down and captured. They deserted.

Doubt the Rebellion would kill for that though. They likely wouldn't even track them down (no resources for that). Strip them from rank and dismiss them from service. They're not likely to defect to the Empire.

Death sentance would be more likely for someone like a traitor to the effort. Someone that allied with the Empire to help defeat the rebels.

not quite. the pilot rejoined voluntarily making their way to a rendezvous point after leaving. said he was worried about other cells.

my thought is, the politeness shown leniency, give him a crap job for a while.

as for the other, the alliance is resource strapped, he didn't take control of the vessle, and instead went along to the rendezvous point. he doesn't like combat, so give him a job as a clerk. he's out of danger, still does good for the alliance.

If they ran off and rejoined, that would be cowardice in the situation. Sounds like these guys had to be tracked down and captured. They deserted.

Doubt the Rebellion would kill for that though. They likely wouldn't even track them down (no resources for that). Strip them from rank and dismiss them from service. They're not likely to defect to the Empire.

Death sentance would be more likely for someone like a traitor to the effort. Someone that allied with the Empire to help defeat the rebels.

not quite. the pilot rejoined voluntarily making their way to a rendezvous point after leaving. said he was worried about other cells.

my thought is, the politeness shown leniency, give him a crap job for a while.

as for the other, the alliance is resource strapped, he didn't take control of the vessle, and instead went along to the rendezvous point. he doesn't like combat, so give him a job as a clerk. he's out of danger, still does good for the alliance.

With that it probably would not be looked at as Desertion, but rather a different charge on that would mitigate the penalty level down. I say probably AWOL, Dereliction of Duty, and at the most severe Misconduct in front of the Enemy.

Sentence - Busted down in Rank, Half a Months pay for 2+ months, and Restriction.

Taking the "moral high ground" in a war loses the war pretty quickly if you never punish the bad and never risk the lives of innocents. The destruction of the Death Star...how many innocent slave workers, contractors, maids, cooks, and dishwashers were killed?

Show me one war, just one, where "taking the moral high ground" resulted in defeat.

Extremists often trot out such a line, but I've yet to see any valid evidence. It is much more often that both sides justify horrific atrocities against their enemies which have nothing to do with victory.

Show me one war, just one, where "taking the moral high ground" resulted in defeat.

Extremists often trot out such a line, but I've yet to see any valid evidence. It is much more often that both sides justify horrific atrocities against their enemies which have nothing to do with victory.

Not sure you can say that it always results in defeat, but it could be considered a factor in how a War is fought. Moral High Ground really depends on the Accepted Rules of War.

American Revolution - American's used Guerrilla Tactics which best utilized their resources. The British refused to use such tactics because in their mind they held the Moral High Ground and that they fought war like Gentleman should.

The use of Chemical Weapons in probably the best example. Use extensively in WWI and at times between the World Wars. During WWII the Allies primarily refused to use Chemical Weapons. We do know that the option of Chemical Weapons was not off the table, but not considered something one could just use.

Morality is, of course, a factor in how a war is fought, but I've never seen it play a major role in who wins or loses. The American Revolution is a great example. Many claim that the British clinging to "gentlemanly" conduct led to their loss of the war, but this simply isn't true. The British won the majority of the battles, and only lost when the French deployed an army and, more importantly, a fleet to end British naval dominance along the American coast. That coupled with lukewarm support at home led to British defeat. If the British had decided to abandon their gentlemanly rules, victory would not have necessarily followed.

Many nations have committed horrible atrocities on their enemies and used draconian policies to maintain order among their own forces. History shows time and again that the army which routinely executes its own soldiers for desertion and not following muddled orders has no greater chance of victory than the one that does not. The Imperial Japanese Army instituted inhumane levels of discipline within its own force structure, and lost despite such depravities. The Soviets did horrible things to their own men, and won. The Americans did not, and won. The Italians did not, and lost.

Brutality no more guarantees victory than leniency ensures defeat despite what the bloody minded have to say on the matter.

Morality is, of course, a factor in how a war is fought, but I've never seen it play a major role in who wins or loses. The American Revolution is a great example. Many claim that the British clinging to "gentlemanly" conduct led to their loss of the war, but this simply isn't true. The British won the majority of the battles, and only lost when the French deployed an army and, more importantly, a fleet to end British naval dominance along the American coast. That coupled with lukewarm support at home led to British defeat. If the British had decided to abandon their gentlemanly rules, victory would not have necessarily followed.

I really should have explained what I meant on the American Revolution Example.

The British found their Moral High Ground in that not fighting as Gentleman is against the Rules of War.

While the Americans (the French and Indian War being a factor) did not see using Guerrilla Tactics as being against the Rules of War. So it did not go against their Moral High Ground like how they viewed the British taking peoples homes to Quarter their soldiers.

On one level, I agree with you guys that the Rebellion would generally take the high ground wherever possible - but there is value in having a darker side to the Alliance.

Sure. I'm not saying the Alliance can't have a black ops division that does morally questionable things. I'm simply arguing that it seems unlike them to field execute a rank-and-file volunteer who ran from an Imperial Star Destroyer after receiving confusing orders in a combat situation.

Morality is, of course, a factor in how a war is fought, but I've never seen it play a major role in who wins or loses. The American Revolution is a great example. Many claim that the British clinging to "gentlemanly" conduct led to their loss of the war, but this simply isn't true. The British won the majority of the battles, and only lost when the French deployed an army and, more importantly, a fleet to end British naval dominance along the American coast. That coupled with lukewarm support at home led to British defeat. If the British had decided to abandon their gentlemanly rules, victory would not have necessarily followed.

Many nations have committed horrible atrocities on their enemies and used draconian policies to maintain order among their own forces. History shows time and again that the army which routinely executes its own soldiers for desertion and not following muddled orders has no greater chance of victory than the one that does not. The Imperial Japanese Army instituted inhumane levels of discipline within its own force structure, and lost despite such depravities. The Soviets did horrible things to their own men, and won. The Americans did not, and won. The Italians did not, and lost.

Brutality no more guarantees victory than leniency ensures defeat despite what the bloody minded have to say on the matter.

I like people who recognize history.

"God fights on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon understood that much, if not hubris. The only way I can see morality affecting odds of success or victory is in how it affects morale. Even then, morality is not universal. Different peoples see different things as right and wrong. When we talk about moral high ground, it's all just perspective and values. Like Darth Vader.

Darth Vader believed in himself. So much so that he personally entered Echo Base, thus preventing an orbital bombardment WHICH WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF TAKING OUT THE SHIELD GENERATOR. Way to go, Vader. The Rebels escaped because you wanted to do it yourself instead of following the battle plan. I bet he only has his job because he's friends with someone higher up.

Vader didn't really care about the Rebel Base he cared about capturing Luke or capturing Luke's friends as bait to lure Luke into a trap. Hiting the base was just a means to that end.

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 would point out that Han wasn't a member of the Rebellion at the time.

And most of the time the heroes are fleeing a superior force, it would be considered a fighting retreat.

At the point Vader goose stepped his way into Echo Base, the Rebels had already finished their evac to either space or the secondary evac point where the X-Wings were waiting. No point in glassing the site when you might be able to recover information, although I seriously doubt Vader thought that way.

And if the recent Marvel comic is to be believed...

And if the recent Marvel comic is to be believed...

Vader could have just grabbed the Millennium Falcon out of the air with the Force and kept it from escaping! If he can throw around AT-ATs...

That is absolutely asinine.

Someone's been playing to many video games...

And if the recent Marvel comic is to be believed...

Vader could have just grabbed the Millennium Falcon out of the air with the Force and kept it from escaping! If he can throw around AT-ATs...

That is absolutely asinine.

Someone's been playing to many video games...

I've read it - Vader doesn't "throw around AT-ATs". Han and Leia are escaping in one and Han tries to tread on Vader as they leave. There is much grinding of metal and Han finds he can't lower the foot as Vader looks up, hand outstretched holding it off from crushing him. It doesn't feel video-game, it feels dramatic and impressive. There's no hint that Vader could have then picked up the AT-AT or similar, he just holds off one foot a few metres above him from coming down.

SO WHATEVER WAS the outcome for this?

And if the recent Marvel comic is to be believed...

Vader could have just grabbed the Millennium Falcon out of the air with the Force and kept it from escaping! If he can throw around AT-ATs...

That is absolutely asinine.

Someone's been playing to many video games...

I've read it - Vader doesn't "throw around AT-ATs". Han and Leia are escaping in one and Han tries to tread on Vader as they leave. There is much grinding of metal and Han finds he can't lower the foot as Vader looks up, hand outstretched holding it off from crushing him. It doesn't feel video-game, it feels dramatic and impressive. There's no hint that Vader could have then picked up the AT-AT or similar, he just holds off one foot a few metres above him from coming down.

I think the poster I responded to might had overstated a tad.

It seemed pretty over-the-top to me, but your mileage may vary

When he can juggle two dozen AT-ATs with the Force while deflecting fire from half a dozen sources with his lightsaber we can talk about it being over the top. Anyone with decent Force training should be able to do what he did here.

It seemed pretty over-the-top to me, but your mileage may vary

I suppose it depends how you view things, but it didn't come across as munchkin-y power-tripping stuff. The foot comes down, Vader reaches up and holds it off and it looks like it's taking real effort. Han makes some comment like "wah...?" and then R2 gets the AT-AT's guns online and Vader is almost killed in the blast as he dives to the side.

It makes Vader look impressive, no doubt. But like you say, mileage may vary.