Hey guys, some questions here

I'm in the middle of creating a story that puts my PCs as Force-Sensitive members of a Rebel team that has been tasked to look into military applications of the Force and Force Sensitives (as spies, operatives, or even front-line soldiers, depending on how the players decide to build their characters). The team is going to be led by an NPC whose weakness is that she relies a little to heavily on the Foresee power, which will eventually lead to some sort of tragic failure (I haven't decided the nature of the failure yet).

Basically my questions are these: How do court-martials work in a loose military organization like the Rebellion? Is it possible for my NPC to do something bad enough to get demoted instead of some sort of imprisonment or discharge? I assume the Alliance would find a way to continue to use the guilty party, as I don't think they have the resources to simply throw away effective operatives, even if they do something horribly wrong (I'm setting said events between the Battles of Yavin and Hoth).

The ideal situation is that my NPC will be demoted, but then asked to work in the same unit, under the new commanding officer (who will hopefully be one of the PCs). I'm just not sure if that's a realistic outcome, however, due to my general ignorance on subjects of military organization.

Demotion works fine. The Rebel Alliance tends to take the moral high ground whenever possible, so it would make sense that they would want to give the guilty party a second chance and a way to redeem themselves.

This does give you an interesting option for play:

Run the adventure as a series of flashbacks. Open with a board of inquiry establish the horrible up front, then jump back to the events and have the players run the encounters. Switch out regularly, going back and forth between statements made under oath by different players, and the actual events as they occurred. In the end, the board finds the NPC in question skilled, but not suited for command, and relieves him/her. After an adventure or 3 that person can come back having decided that they'd rather be a worker bee anyway...

The problem with that is what if the PCs manage to turn the op into a win in the flashbacks? I personally hate the idea of GMs sending parties into battles where they lose no matter what they do due to GM interference.

All things considered court martials work best when all parties involved are invested in the military life and culture. The Alliance is too lose of an organization for court martialing to truly be an effective form of punishment. The NPC could quit at anytime afterall, unlike more formal military structures in which even if you quit you can still be arressted by MP's who can legally go hunt for you. That's not going to be the case with the Rebels.

Thus overall demotion works best. Or they come to rely on her less and less, opting to make use of other people and the general talk indicates she's on the outs with the Alliance.

You could do something like from the first few episodes of Band of Brothers. Run the PCs through a series of training exercises where failure doesn't have the same consequences. Just before the team is operationalized, the NPC is laterally 'promoted' away from his current job and a PC is put in charge. (CPT Sobel/LT Winters) The NPC might move over to an analyst position rather than a field agent, so there could still be a little tension there without out-and-out resentment.

As far as the over-reliance on forsee, I don't think you need a total tragic failure. He could become so obsessed with knowing the future and avoiding failure, he could overreact to the subltest details from his visions that he becomes indecisive and ineffective as a leader.

The rebellion would absolutely use court-martials. Up until the time of the new republic, the rebellion was a military organization, and was actually pretty well organized, because if they didn't stay two steps ahead of the empire they'd be destroyed. So, the rebellion actually used capital punishment for some of the more serious crimes, like espionage, because they didn't have the luxury of holding prisoners, and letting them go would be unthinkably stupid.

My thoughts are that a court-martial would pretty much mean imprisonment or death. The rebels can't exactly afford to kick out people who know their secrets and hope they stay quiet.

Most likely a "reassignment" would occur rather than a court-martial for most things. You can then keep the person on your side, but out of the way, or in a position where you can keep an eye on them.

Thank you all for the answers and the ideas! I have some follow-up questions.

All I know about court-martials I learned from Hollywood, that inscrutable bastion of truth and factuality. What would a Rebellion court-martial actually look like? Does the Alliance have advocates or lawyers the same way our trials would? Who would do the judging (giving the PCs a chance to meet one of the bigwigs from the movies in a cool cameo sort of scene)?

Thanks again!

Thank you all for the answers and the ideas! I have some follow-up questions.

All I know about court-martials I learned from Hollywood, that inscrutable bastion of truth and factuality. What would a Rebellion court-martial actually look like? Does the Alliance have advocates or lawyers the same way our trials would? Who would do the judging (giving the PCs a chance to meet one of the bigwigs from the movies in a cool cameo sort of scene)?

Thanks again!

It's possible. There's a neat little specialization in Desperate Allies called the "Advocate" that would could easily be a lawyer specialization.

Thank you all for the answers and the ideas! I have some follow-up questions.

All I know about court-martials I learned from Hollywood, that inscrutable bastion of truth and factuality. What would a Rebellion court-martial actually look like? Does the Alliance have advocates or lawyers the same way our trials would? Who would do the judging (giving the PCs a chance to meet one of the bigwigs from the movies in a cool cameo sort of scene)?

Thanks again!

Courts martial depend on the level of the charge and the rank of the offender. A low level offense with an enlisted soldier could be a summary court martial, which has a single appointed officer who acts as judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney all at the same time. The summary court martial officer makes recommendations for punishment that are screened by the judge advocate general and approved by a general officer. Officers cannot be tried by summary court martial

Special Courts martial (with a 3-person panel) and general courts martial (5-person panel) are used to try more serious crimes or offenses by higher ranking individuals. To sit on a panel, you must be a higher rank than the defendant. These trials always involve trial lawyers.

I think the trial of James T Kirk is an excellent example of what a court martial may look like, but instead of some grand building, it could be in the converted cargo hold of a ship, a cave, or some long forgotten temple.

BTW, the pluralization of court martial is courts martial...weird military speak like the pluralization of sergeant major is sergeants major.

Not all courts martial are extreme, life or death. I could only see the Rebellion executing someone for war crimes or treason. I find them too idealistic.

An offense such as dereliction of duty or cowardice could mean demotion or expulsion from the ranks. Just because someone is dishonored doesn't mean they need to be locked up or killed...sorry, buddy, you're just not cut out for this. I could see a commander charging a subordinate with something like dereliction of duty, and the defendant's only recourse is to request a trial by court martial to plead his case to a jury of senior officers.

Now that I think about it, this could be a great stroyline, too. A PC or friendly NPC is charged with a crime. An advocate-themed PC must defend him while the rest of the team searches the base to discover the truth behind a conspiracy. Can they find out the truth before it is too late?

an NPC whose weakness is that she relies a little to heavily on the Foresee power, which will eventually lead to some sort of tragic failure (I haven't decided the nature of the failure yet).

An awful lot is going to ride on what sort of tragic failure occurs. Unless the person was outright negligent or otherwise directly contributed to the bad outcome, they aren't likely to wind up on trial because of it.

You need to ask yourself "what is the story purpose of this trial" and "what impact should the PCs have on the outcome."

If the PCs don't have any way to change events, have it happen off screen behind closed doors. The players are probably not there to watch you roleplay out a scene with yourself. If the outcome is predetermined, just get on with the story and let the players deal with the fallout. It may not even need to be a trial, just the decision of someone higher up.

If the PCs should be able to influence things, then you need to decide how you want them to do that. Do you want to have them as witnesses, co-defendants, advocates for/against the accused or doing some kind of investigation. Think of how can they impact the story in way that will further the narrative and be enjoyable for the players.

If they are witnesses, do you expect the PCs to lie or really argue in court or will it just be them recounting events from a previous game session. Will there be fallout if the PCs lie? Where will the drama and tension be? Would taking the stand be fun for the players? Will their testimony impact innocence or guilt? Will it impact the severity of the sentence? Will you question the PCs one by one, or treat it like a movie montage and ask them all the same question one right after the other (so that you don't have 3+ bored players while only one participates).

If they are co-defendants, are you prepared to exile/demote the PCs or just some of the PCs? Would the trial be something they (the players) would enjoy? How will the PCs have an effect on the outcome?

If they are advocates, do they have the skills to do so? Is their skill/lack of skill a factor (such as a higher up putting the uncharismatic beat stick in charge of defense so they are guaranteed to lose)? Will the players enjoy this kind of thing? Will this leave some players with nothing to do? Where is the tension and conflict.

Perhaps they are doing some kind of investigation to go alongside the trial. What kind of evidence/witness are they looking for? Are they looking for proof their commander was given bad intel, or that their commander was right and the losses were acceptable given what would have been the outcome had they not acted (i.e. people died, but they saved a planet of kittens). Is this side quest going to be meaningful to the story or just killing part of game session? Is looking for evidence of innocence something the players would enjoy doing? Maybe they find evidence of a force user higher up that hates their commander and used their powers to feed her bad intel, corruption in the alliance ranks, or an outside influence that the PCs need to track down. A side investigation could lead to threads for a longer campaign/adventure.

Depending on the group, I would likely have the trial behind closed doors and either jump straight to the outcome or send the PCs off on a side mission that leads to a bigger story. Whatever happens, it needs to serve the narrative and keep the game moving.

For flavor, I would run it as a movie inspired (the whole setting is movie inspired) military tribunal. Of the three ranking officers sitting on the bench, I might have a character from the movies make a cameo if that is something the players would enjoy. I would also have a droid to keep a record of the trial (instead of the usual person typing) just for flavor.

A few things:

First, from what you've described, I'm not sure a court martial is even a necessary or realistic outcome. Botched jobs happen, and the Alliance command structure is all too familiar with this. For them to focus time, personnel, and resources on an investigation and trial would require that a few conditions are met: reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, reasonable doubt of wrongdoing, and said wrongdoing being in the goldilocks zone between getting a quick bit of discipline from a superior, and warranting instant and permanent justice. From what you described, it doesn't sound like the NPC in question necessarily did anything wrong, they were just unsuccessful. A consistent pattern of this may be grounds for demotion, but one failure isn't likely to be cause for much punitive action.

Second, while a court martial system is natural and even necessary for the military of an established, organized state, for something like the Rebellion, anything that would warrant it would also be something that has them seriously questioning where they stand on the offender, beyond the scope of the trial itself. I mean, if this is someone that has taken actions counter to the good of the Alliance, what's to say they'll abide by the decisions of the court? How can they be sure that they can even exert their disciplinary capacity on the guilty party? And can they afford to trust their continued security to the good graces of a now probably disgruntled employee? For a powerful enough character, a best-case scenario might be a Bel Iblis style rift, worst being an outright defection, or betrayal at the worst possible moment.

If you address these concerns, then you can move on to the implications of the court martial, provided that the accused will abide by the court's decision and remain within the system.

First and foremost in this situation, the proceedings and impact will depend heavily on when exactly in the Alliance's lifetime it takes place. A new Alliance that has just progressed beyond isolated cells is going to lack the force of will as well as the desire to really step on many toes, preferring to let groups handle that sort of thing internally, and perhaps only stepping in as a court to settle disputes. By the time the Alliance is ready to blossom into a Republic, there's likely a thick book somewhere containing all of the intricacies of their military legal code. Between the two extremes, the possibilities are endless. Aside from execution, discharge (which would likely include *serious* damage control on the part of the Alliance), and demotion, other disciplinary action might include house arrest (to keep them from interfering with operations), transfer (likely to some dead end outpost, or to a task force under a more strict leader), revocation of commission (for a cap ship captain), being pulled from the line (and given a desk job), and of course prison terms of varying lengths.

While our particular situation isn't one that I'd typically run, I do like the idea of a court martial being central to a story arc within a military campaign. I could definitely see such a thing providing any kind of player with an opportunity to shine, from a hunt for evidence, tracking down witnesses, representation in the trial itself...and if the accused is a friend, and is convicted, perhaps visits to them in house arrest, trying to accomplish goals with that person confined, and trying to clear their good name or prove their innocence/expose a conspiracy to have them put away.

I think the real reason I want to run the court martial scenario is to give the PCs a pretty atypical challenge. We're just coming off of a long-running D&D campaign, and I think all of us are getting a little tired of the "kick down the door, stab the ogre, loot the glistening chest" formula. I think that a court martial seems likely, as there will be some degree of suspicion that my NPC's screw up is less accidental and more sinister in nature, and I want the PCs to be influential in the outcome, both as witnesses and perhaps as even investigators or advocates, depending on how they end up building their characters (we're still at that stage). If they are successful, the NPC will be demoted and placed under the command of one of the PCs. If they fail, she'll probably be imprisoned, and the PCs will be without her help in dealing with a potentially real sabotage/espionage situation. Behind the scenes, the NPCs failure really was her own overconfidence and not something more sinister, but it will coincidentally begin to reveal some genuine infiltration or espionage from the Empire.

We're just coming off of a long-running D&D campaign, and I think all of us are getting a little tired of the "kick down the door, stab the ogre, loot the glistening chest" formula.

You may not want to jump right into something totally different than hack, slash and take their stuff. A group I gamed with went from a fantasy environment to a near future space campaign and when the first adventure opened up in a bar room fight with several assassin types. During the fight one of the characters fired a full auto pistol across the room hitting a couple of innocent bystanders at the end of the fight killed the wounded assassins in cold blood. We all then grabbed their guns, wallets and tech gadgets before running off to rent a hotel room to plot our next move....

Kinda harsh, right....

We didn't think about the fact that the universe became civilized all of the sudden and some of the decision made that first adventure followed us through the rest of the campaign.

Might I suggest the "Dead in the Water" adventure included with the AoR GM Kit. The "killing" is all droids for most of the mission. The loss of meat based life is minimal. However it give them a chance to get their feet wet in the system and not be punished for shooting first, shooting some more and maybe if anyone is left moving perhaps asking a question or two...

I think the real reason I want to run the court martial scenario is to give the PCs a pretty atypical challenge. We're just coming off of a long-running D&D campaign, and I think all of us are getting a little tired of the "kick down the door, stab the ogre, loot the glistening chest" formula. I think that a court martial seems likely, as there will be some degree of suspicion that my NPC's screw up is less accidental and more sinister in nature, and I want the PCs to be influential in the outcome, both as witnesses and perhaps as even investigators or advocates, depending on how they end up building their characters (we're still at that stage). If they are successful, the NPC will be demoted and placed under the command of one of the PCs. If they fail, she'll probably be imprisoned, and the PCs will be without her help in dealing with a potentially real sabotage/espionage situation. Behind the scenes, the NPCs failure really was her own overconfidence and not something more sinister, but it will coincidentally begin to reveal some genuine infiltration or espionage from the Empire.

Perhaps run this one as a 2 parter: in the first Episode, they're charged with building a defense case for their ally. In this scenario, there's a few options: material evidence and witnesses, several of each. The material evidence is easier to acquire by force (though they can acquire more of it through stealth and deception) while the witnesses (except maybe a droid, that they could blast and salvage it's memory core) will require some finesse. While some will be isolated from them by their opponents, and they'll just have to locate them to get them to agree to testify, others (the ones with the more exonerating bits of testimony, naturally) will have to be begged, bribed, blackmailed, persuaded, or have odd jobs done *for* them (further stressing PCs on an already tight schedule) before they're willing to give their statements.

If they're less honorable, they may also turn to the underworld, getting records falsified, and having witnesses with unfavorable testimony silenced...either with threats, bribes, or outright elimination. Think of the scene in the second Godfather where Frank Pentangeli is on the stand and Tom Hagen walks in with his brother from the Old Country. Ostensibly, Hagen claimed he was there to "support his brother", but the message was clear: be careful what you say on that stand, your brother's life is in our hands.

The thing with the Rebel Alliance is that it is... an alliance. One part of it might be the actual military of a rebel world with all the structure and discipline that entails. Another part of it might be impromptu militia who are still working out who is in charge now their government no longer exists, let alone have detailed legal procedures. Another division might be a criminal cabal of assassins from Umbara who want to free their world from occupation and maintain internal discipline the same way they always have - executing failures.

The Alliance is co-ordinated and shares a purpose. But it's not one chain of command or a single homogenous organization. Would they court martial or execute someone for example? Depends which member of the Alliance we're talking about, I would say.

Oh, and as to over-reliance on Foresee... "All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was."

Basically my questions are these: How do court-martials work in a loose military organization like the Rebellion? Is it possible for my NPC to do something bad enough to get demoted instead of some sort of imprisonment or discharge? I assume the Alliance would find a way to continue to use the guilty party, as I don't think they have the resources to simply throw away effective operatives, even if they do something horribly wrong (I'm setting said events between the Battles of Yavin and Hoth).

The ideal situation is that my NPC will be demoted, but then asked to work in the same unit, under the new commanding officer (who will hopefully be one of the PCs). I'm just not sure if that's a realistic outcome, however, due to my general ignorance on subjects of military organization.

To go to a point that has been brought up it would not need a full court-martial.

What you probably want to use is NJP (Non Judicial Punishment). Used mostly for Minor Infractions.

Which is held by the Specific Command. Example held by the Commanding Officer of a Capital Ship, Military Base, the Commander of a Unit, and Captain's Mast.

Punishments can be demotion, reassignment, restriction, docking pay, additional duties, etc..

If you want something more serious you can then go up to a Court Martial, but NJP should cover most things until you get into Capital Offences.

I would have one or all the PC's be on trail. I think that way they will be more vested in the proceedings. You could do it in two parts, with the first part being the mission and the second one being the trail. In the course of the first one you can set it up for the players to fail the mission.