During a base defense battle, my group was working together with a couple of minion rebels. When one of them disobeyed an order a PC gave them (which was acceptable, as it was a low-ranking SpecOps guy telling a low-ranking SpecForce guy what to do), said PC shot him on the spot.

Now, court martial-ing them isn't really an option I can work with, so: What sorts of punishment could I deal out? The player's invested in his character, so I don't want to take it away from them, but I feel some kind of repercussions for friendly fire are in order.

Have a CO (depending on location, maybe even Reeiken or Madine) yell at him for a while.

Plus:

A stint in the brig, demotion, pay cut (if they get paid), or maybe even reassignment of resources to other, more efficient groups.

Oooooor you could do unofficial punishments like a SpecForce/SpecOps prank war, turn a little too violent. Someone spikes their caff with something a little stronger than your regular laxatives. Maybe his squad mates corner the PC in the mess hall. Depening on how well liked the guy was, the PC may even get hit by an "Imperial" grenade.

Madine's people are scary. Cracken's people are scary. The both of them fighting each other? Ohh no.

47 minutes ago, EpicTed said:

During a base defense battle, my group was working together with a couple of minion rebels. When one of them disobeyed an order a PC gave them (which was acceptable, as it was a low-ranking SpecOps guy telling a low-ranking SpecForce guy what to do), said PC shot him on the spot.

Now, court martial-ing them isn't really an option I can work with, so: What sorts of punishment could I deal out? The player's invested in his character, so I don't want to take it away from them, but I feel some kind of repercussions for friendly fire are in order.

Complex question, and not sure there is enough context here to give a solid answer. Much of it will depend on what time of game you are playing, and what the players at the table (you included) feel about the act that took place, and what repercussions it should have.

In the sense of a military organization like the Rebel Alliance (I presume your party works for the Rebellion, however your post does not explicitly state as such), I cannot see summary capital punishment for refusing an order ever being condoned, and would be immediate grounds for court martial, charge of manslaugher (sentient slaughter if you prefer) at minimum. Even brutal regimes such as the Empire would typically not execute soldiers for simple refusal to follow an order. As such, the act of shooting an NPC to failure to follow an order is way, way over the top.

With regards to "The player's invested in his character, so [you] don't want to take it way from them", what actions would have to take place before you would? From the limited information provided, it looks to me the player took a very, very bad action in response to a rather simple act by an NPC. If players make bad decisions, they should expect bad results. The answer to this question really comes down to the style of game you're playing. If players at the table accepted during session zero that bad decisions have bad consequences, then I would rule accordingly. If the flip side is the players really don't want severe consequences for bad decisions then letting it slide probably makes more sense, but it will require a little more explanation on the part of the player and GM (e.g. "Nobody liked Rid Shurt anyway, he was mean, nasty, and insubordinate. The squad all agrees, it wasn't friendly fire, it was a sniper's bullet. Of course the rest of the squad knows your secret now, and occasionally likes to remind said player of this knowledge..."

What order did he give that was disobeyed?

Was there actual reason for shooting the npc?

I assume he killed him and it was witnessed?

Might have your group reassigned offworld if they don't agree with their decision!

Depends on how much they need his help or your groups remember Rogue One?

4 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I cannot see summary capital punishment for refusing an order ever being condoned, and woul  d be immediate grounds for court martial, charge of manslaugher (sentient slaughter if you prefer) at  minimum. Even brutal regimes such as the Empire wo  uld typically not execute soldiers for simple refusa  l t  o follow an order. As such, the act of shooting an N  PC to failure to follow an order is way, way over the top.

Well, there is one notable contemporary that executes his subordinates whenever his orders aren't followed, or perhaps fails him for the last time. I would emphasize this in and out of universe. I don't imagine your true and through rebel PC would appreciate being compared to the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Military, and the PC would likely change their view on the situation. You could even make this a haunting failure from now on, a knawing self doubt that they don't have what it takes to lead.

As someone who was in the military, I can truthfully this character's actions are definitely a Court Marshal offense . Disobeying an order is not grounds for summary execution, particularly if said NPC was of the same rank/Pay Grade as the PC, or otherwise outside of his direct chain of command. Even if the PC did out rank the NPC in question. All that PC is authorized to do is have that NPC confined and brought up on charges, nothing more .

Perhaps you could go for alternative punishment. He just volunteered for the next suicide mission.

Have the player flip a Destiny point to edit the scene: "Remember that file of Imperial sleeper agents we recovered? Remember when I said I thought I'd seen #13 before? Well, that was him; I'm sure of it now. Check the file and check what's left of that traitor. He was about to turn on us, and if I hadn't shot him right then, good Rebels were going to die."

And then let the player know he can NEVER pull this crap again.

For something that severe, something equally severe, but not outright death. Some time in the brig, demotion down a few ranks and docking of pay works, as well as some less than desirable duty assignments.

For minor offenses, use your imagination. We had a few that were used against us in army basic training, flipping rocks over so they "bake evenly", mopping the rain as it's raining, and using a slippery when wet sign, for safety. Sweeping the dirt off the dirt, cleaning the grass, etc. Just stupid, mundane, and crap that when you look back on it, is funny.

I'm with Copperbell on this one.

I need WAY more information on this one.

I do recall that as an NCO, I did have the authority to perform summary executions on a battlefield for disobedience to orders* and desertion. Hmmmm. But I'd have to make certain that I was actually in the right . There's also the fact that shooting your own troops is generally a waste of ammo and can kill morale. * (Later in my career that was modified to 'lawful' orders).

TrumpGraphics does make a good point that enforcing discipline on a trooper outside your unit & chain of command doesn't work in the US Army.

However Commissars in Soviet Russia and Gestapo agents in Nazi Germany DID have that authority. And they DID exercise that authority.

So without details I don't know what would be appropriate. However, based on what little I do know, a Court Marshal should be convened. Let THEM sort through the evidence and render a verdict.

There is also another cogent facet to this decision too. Unfortunately (yes unfortunately) success tends to make up for a multitude of sins.

I recall reading a play (Scandinavian playwright and blast me it's been over 20 years so the name escapes me) about a soldier in a mercenary like company. The contrast is that this soldier is involved in a serious battle and engages in a number of reckless acts but because the unit wins the battle the soldier is hailed as a hero. In the next battle, the course of the conflict turns against the troop and the soldier, doing essentially the exact same acts, is later tried for criminal misconduct and executed for this 'crimes.' Because the army lost.

My point being, that if the PC in question affected significant and spectacular actions to turn the tide of battle in favor of his side, then the case may just . . . go away.

However, if they made a material mess of the situation, then a court marshal may go harder on him.

And lastly, there is one other consequence possible. Those SpecForces guys don't die easy. He may have been shot and may have gone down, but that's quite different from dying . It's entirely possible that the SpecFor guy is still alive, well, walking, and holding a grudge.

6 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

And lastly, there is one other consequence possible. Those SpecForces guys don't die easy. He may have been shot and may have gone down, but that's quite different from dying . It's entirely possible that the SpecFor guy is still alive, well, walking, and holding a grudge.

In Star Wars, he might be alive with half (or more) of his body missing!

8 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

In Star Wars, he might be alive with half (or more) of his body missing!

Dang it all (In My Star Wars Universe) "Han shot first and Darth Maul is dead!"

I should probably make T-shirts with that slogan . . .

Okay, since so many people are asking for more information:

This is the Age of Rebellion forum, so yes, we're talking about an Alliance group. They're at Contribution Rank 1, so pretty far down the ladder. As they're part of SpecOps, there's not really a chain of command in place; at the end of the day, their commanding officer is good ol' Cracken himself. They've set up a base on a planet unknown to the Empire, but got into trouble with a major pirate organization in the process, who then staged an invasion. Part of that was dealing with a tank (accompanied by some infantry) that was dropped off close to the base. The PCs teamed up with the remains of a SpecForce platoon, trying to lure it into a narrow path to give the guys with missile launchers a good shot. To get the tank further into the path, one of the PCs jumped down and ordered the SpecForce soldiers to follow. They weren't all too keen on it, so I made him roll Leadership and interpreted the result as "one of them doesn't follow". As a reaction, the PC shot the stubborn soldier. He had more than one opportunity to rethink his decision, but went with it anyway. Long story short: He rolled pretty darn well on the attack, and since we're talking about minions, that guy died pretty hard, and with plenty of witnesses around him.

Now, that is obviously an offense which more than warrants a court marshal, but as stated, I don't wanna go that route, and now I'm asking for alternative punishment options which don't remove the character from play.

9 minutes ago, EpicTed said:

Okay, since so many people are asking for more information:

This is the Age of Rebellion forum, so yes, we're talking about an Alliance group. They're at Contribution Rank 1, so pretty far down the ladder. As they're part of SpecOps, there's not really a chain of command in place; at the end of the day, their commanding officer is good ol' Cracken himself. They've set up a base on a planet unknown to the Empire, but got into trouble with a major pirate organization in the process, who then staged an invasion. Part of that was dealing with a tank (accompanied by some infantry) that was dropped off close to the base. The PCs teamed up with the remains of a SpecForce platoon, trying to lure it into a narrow path to give the guys with missile launchers a good shot. To get the tank further into the path, one of the PCs jumped down and ordered the SpecForce soldiers to follow. They weren't all too keen on it, so I made him roll Leadership and interpreted the result as "one of them doesn't follow". As a reaction, the PC shot the stubborn soldier. He had more than one opportunity to rethink his decision, but went with it anyway. Long story short: He rolled pretty darn well on the attack, and since we're talking about minions, that guy died pretty hard, and with plenty of witnesses around him

Now, that is obviously an offense which more than warrants a court marshal, but as stated, I don't wanna go that route, and now I'm asking for alternative punishment options which don't remove the character from play.

Unfortunately, there isn't one, especially not in the Rebellion, which is based upon restoring a just government and rule of law , not tyranny. His action requires a court marshal. Understand, a court marshal is not, itself a punishment. It's a trial . Specifically, it's a trial by military tribunal . Watch A Few Good Men , starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson, for a good example of a court marshal.

Okay what Tramp Graphics said.

Scenario A:

Did they blow up the Tank?

Could the recalcitrant soldier's refusal to cooperate have jeopardized the mission?

Result: Slap on the wrist.

Scenario B:

Did they blow up the Tank?

Was the recalcitrant soldier's refusal irrelevant to the success?

Hmmmmmm. Confinement to quarters (Unless on duty or a mission) for a week or so and maybe a dock in pay. Also a forfeiture of rank.

Scenario C

Did the tank not blow up?

FRY HIM! (See my previous posts).

Scenario D

Why ask if the tank blew up? I KNOW it got blown up.

Okay, enough quibbling. Those are my suggestions.

5 hours ago, EpicTed said:

Now, that is obviously an offense which more than warrants a court marshal, but as stated, I don't wanna go that route, and now I'm asking for alternative punishment options which don't remove the character from play.

What would you like to have happen to the character in question? Is there anything about the player behavior you want to change? From a realism standpoint, the character in question would be screwed. He would be arrested, court martialed, found guilty, and sent to prison, if not executed. But I get that isn't want you want to do, and that is fair, it is just a game.

Do you want to hand wave the situation away? Then I'd seriously consider the option Happy Daze suggested; next session tap a destiny point (or three), and re-write the narrative. It could be as simple as "You pull your weapon on the recalcitrant soldier, his eyes betraying the utter fear and chaos of the situation. Staring down the barrel of a gun he regains his sense, and follows your orders. Your fears of having to pull the trigger fade away..."

The other considerations are what do others at the table feel about this player's action? Was it a big deal? Did it disrupt the session and or campaign? My supposition is you are not terribly happy about it, as you clearly want to have there be some repercussions to the situation, which I think is totally fair.

Also, have you considered asking the player what should happen to their character? Maybe they will have something totally awesome and you can save yourself some trouble of coming up with an idea on your own.

3 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

Okay what Tramp Graphics said.

Scenario A:

Did they blow up the Tank?

Could the recalcitrant soldier's refusal to cooperate have jeopardized the mission?

Result: Slap on the wrist.

Scenario B:

Did they blow up the Tank?

Was the recalcitrant soldier's refusal irrelevant to the success?

Hmmmmmm. Confinement to quarters (Unless on duty or a mission) for a week or so and maybe a dock in pay. Also a forfeiture of rank.

Scenario C

Did the tank not blow up?

FRY HIM! (See my previous posts).

Scenario D

Why ask if the tank blew up? I KNOW it got blown up.

Okay, enough quibbling. Those are my suggestions.

Just punishment should always be based on the action taken, not on the outcome of that action. If two people make the same poor decision and take the same wrong action that puts a life in jeopardy, they deserve the same punishment even if one person got someone killed and the other through chance caused no harm.

4 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Just punishment should always be based on the action taken, not on the outcome of that action. If two people make the same poor decision and take the same wrong action that puts a life in jeopardy, they deserve the same punishment even if one person got someone killed and the other through chance caused no harm.

In our world I guess we don't get much just punishment then. The difference between, say, "Driving without care and not harming anyone" and "Driving without care and killing someone" is enormous!

18 minutes ago, Darzil said:

In our world I guess we don't get much just punishment then. The difference between, say, "Driving without care and not harming anyone" and "Driving without care and killing someone" is enormous!

True, but the Alliance is full of idealists.

In a just world, two jackholes that fire their weapons into two unfortunate victims with the intention to kill are really doing the same bad thing regardless if one of the victims dies and the other victim emerges unharmed. When you measure the crime by the outcome rather than the act, then the system is not just. Yes, that includes the US CJ system.

8 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Just punishment should always be based on the action taken, not on the outcome of that action. If two people make the same poor decision and take the same wrong action that puts a life in jeopardy, they deserve the same punishment even if one person got someone killed and the other through chance caused no harm.

Yes. Yes they do. And I agree that equal justice under the law is supposed to be an ideal outcome.

But that's not always the case.

There is such a thing as "battlefield expediency."

In borrowing an example from the movie We Were Soldiers there's a scene where the ground based air traffic controller is guiding bombing runs in and he accidentally napalms one of his fellow platoons.

In the movie, his CO runs over to him, orders him to "let that one go" and gives him words of encouragement.

In the Klingon Navy the CO probably would have said something like "K'aplunk! Gah!" Drawn his disintigrator and blasted the guy.

And to return to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UMCJ) for the US Department of Defense (DoD) during a Court Marshal, extenuating and mitigating circumstances are always considered. Even the gradient of is this a model soldier who has an exemplary past vs is this a layabout deadbeat who we're just bidding our time until his re-enlistment can be denied are factors that can affect a Court Marshal.

In this case, we have a GM who doesn't want to bog down his campaign too much so that he can move the PC's through the next story plot.

HERE'S and out! Take it! (But only if you want to).

Have you asked your player what he thinks the consequences are for that action? Maybe he want to be a die hard fanatic rebel, like Saw Guerra?

3 hours ago, Paris Teta said:

Have you asked your player what he thinks the consequences are for that action? Maybe he want to be a die hard fanatic rebel, like Saw Guerra?

Interesting. I hadn't considered something like that at all.

The CO of the base could consider that as long as the pirates are a threat for the base, he doesn't have time to set a court martial properly. And decide to postpone it until the base is secured. The PC continue to do is duty as usual and when he is not on duty he is confined to his quarters.

On 10/18/2018 at 7:46 AM, HappyDaze said:

Just punishment should always be based on the action taken, not on the outcome of that action. If two people make the same poor decision and take the same wrong action that puts a life in jeopardy, they deserve the same punishment even if one person got someone killed and the other through chance caused no harm.

That's not how punishments have been handled in any military in the history of the world, and there's little reason to believe it would be different in the Alliance. Especially since the Alliance is usually split into nearly completely autonomous 'cells': If the trigger-happy PC also contributed heavily to the base still being there, command might very well give him a slap on the wrist, remind him to keep his blaster in his pants when talking to his allies, and send him on the next dangerous mission PCs tend to always be assigned to - and Alliance High Command will never even hear about the incident.

Of course if the PC in question has a history of violent behavior, hasn't done much to contribute to the success of his squad, AND the summary execution didn't in any way contribute (or maybe even hamper) the mission (destroying a tank, in this case), that's when avoiding a court marshal becomes hard. But if the rebel cell in the game is small, they might not even have time for that. So maybe the PC would just either get exiled onto a deserted planet, or executed for his actions. Which is obviously not what the GM here intends, so talking about that option serves little purpose.

Personally, I'd go with a "we should really punish him but we need him on this next uber dangerous assignment, if he bites it on it then we've saved ourselves a headache, if he doesn't then we'll ignore it after we yell at him for an hour" approach.

Outside of the trial options you could also have word spread about him. Fewer and fewer people want to work with him, etc. So say you drop a mission to go blow up a reactor only one of the NPC teams refuses to go with the PC group because of that guy with the reputation for shooting his fellow rebels. Now the mission is harder for the entire group.