Battlefield executions and you.

[Philby0]

Battlefield executions. We all know what they are, we all know what it's about. I wanted to make this thread to discuss BEs in general, because they're usually the events that divide players the most, and create enough salt to supply a country the size of Portugal.

First, I'd like to point out that I don't make this topic to complain. I have never been battlefield executed, but like everyone I have an opinion on whether or not BEs are legitimate in a given situation.
Also, this topic is not the place to discuss particular BEs, they can be used as examples, but then please don't give names, make accusations, etc.


So, battlefield executions are a gameplay feature only accessible to whitelisted players, when playing the role of CO. According to law (and by extension, the rules), it means the CO and higher ranks "may kill anyone under their command or on their ship without any warning or procedure if they feel they are a threat to the mission". That last part is absolutely not a legal factor, however, as it refers to the feeling of the one who shoots. Whether or not the executed is factually a threat to the mission isn't important. What the law says is the CO can kill anyone under their command and/or anyone on the ship, full stop.

The rules are slightly less absolute, because RP guidelines count and staff has a say if they feel it's abuse. Usually through high command but it's still staff stepping in to deal with the rules, only using an IG, RP way. So there's actually a big grey zone when it comes to whether a BE is justified or not, basically everything between a CO basically griefing, and a consensus on the fact the BE was needed.



I've seen a lot of executions that were arguably wrong, and some that just felt absolutely unneeded, and I just want to give my opinion on it in general.

I see a lot of COs defending their executions by saying "it's not against the rules". Most of the time they're right, and the execution is perfectly acceptable considering the rules and the law. But it's usually not what matters the most. The law (although it's an OOC bit) states :
"This is similar to the "Rule 0" rule which applies to admins - you're able to do this, but it's much better not to, since you are subject to the consequences of your actions and may be removed from the whitelist if your reasons aren't acceptable."

What some seem to forget, is that being subject to the consequences of your actions doesn't ONLY mean whitelist removal. It's a general principle. You are subject to ALL the consequences of your actions. COs don't play with random names, they're not PFCs. They're THE individual who commands everyone else, they are encouraged to build a reputation, and they do.

The legal point of view is not the only one to consider. There is also the moral point of view, the legitimacy of the action.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's legitimate nor moral, and it's wrong to think those can be ignored.
Factually, battlefield executions are sommary executions by a military leader, and just because it's authorised doesn't mean marines are forced to like you for it.


Consider from the RP standpoint that you are about to make yourself judge, jury, and executioner. You're about to take someone's life arbitrarily. Whenever a CO executes, they're sending the marines a message about how valuable their lives are to them.

Sun Tzu said :

"The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law (2) Heaven (3) Earth (4) The Commander (5) Method and discipline.

The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. [...] The COMMANDER stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness."

This is literally the FIRST page of the art of war, which is still a relevant military treaty, if you take modern weapons into account.
In short, you can't efficiently command people who don't like and respect you.

I want to know if I'm the only one who thinks that way, and basically what the community as a whole thinks about this. Are there COs that knowingly play a mean commander, at the cost of efficiency and reputation ? And for all COs out there, what are your standards when it comes to killing a man in cold blood ?




TL;DR BEs are usually more bad than good for everyone involved, and mostly the CO. What's your take on BEs ?


Hasta siempre, space comandante...

[HappytoHelp]

Since you asked,
As someone that actually roleplays, BE's are probably the best thing I've seen in the game so far, the and the fact that they're almost entirely unregulated by admins is a bit iffy but they would be amazing...
If they were actually ever followed as intended, Marine Law and the rules state that the commanding officer may execute anyone on their ship with NO warning, as you already covered, but there's the one quote coming after that that CO's always forget.
"If they are a threat to the mission." I have been executed for insulting the CO before.
I have witnessed a PFC get their head blown off by the CO for failing to disarm another marine ONCE during briefing.
I have been executed for refusing to go back planet-side after the first alien attack, while missing a hand.
None of the above threatened the mission and while you could argue that "oh, a subordinate showing insubordination could lead to unrest growing, which would cause a riot if not dealt with", you would be wrong, a PFC calling the CO a dick as a joke would not cause a riot or mutiny.
Still, battlefield executions are great, instead of fixing BE's, we should instead fix the CO applicants and look at them closer. Someone that has in the past shot people over trivial things, or outright states that they are going to play the game as CO to be disliked should not be whitelisted. No actual commanding officer strives to be hated by his men, nor would any commanding officer in the aliens franchise strive to execute as many of his own men as possible.

[NoahKirchner]

A decent idea and in some cases they save a lot of trouble but rather abused imo.

[Philby0]

but there's the one quote coming after that that CO's always forget.
"If they are a threat to the mission." I have been executed for insulting the CO before.

See

if they feel they are a threat to the mission". That last part is absolutely not a legal factor, however, as it refers to the feeling of the one who shoots. Whether or not the executed is factually a threat to the mission isn't important. What the law says is the CO can kill anyone under their command and/or anyone on the ship, full stop.

[Wubs4Scrubs]

I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of having one man who is able to kill anybody at will for anything and still follow the rules. However, I also understand that the average marine is a shit who cares more about his attachments than actually RPing. When you are on a high pop round that is packed to the brim with people who would stab you in the back for a barrel charger you need to have somebody who can put some fear into them, those attachments don't do you much good if the CO blows your head off your shoulders.

Going along with this the average marine doesn't give two shits who the command staff is, they don't care about who is in the right when power struggles start happening, all they care about is having an excuse to finally shoot fellow marines. Given that the CO can be lynched at any time if the shitbirds start getting riled up and jump at the opportunity for a mutiny, it makes perfect sense to me that the CO execute anybody who threatens the chain of command in any way. Some executions are frankly, ridiculous, and I wish that more wording could be added to the rules to get rid of some of the grey area.

[davidofmk771]

Well, I never liked the general execution culture here too much (feels like its trying too hard to mimic other sci-fi media like Warhammer 40K) but it seems like its here to stay. I feel like it conflicts with the general feel presented in Aliens which was more "progressive, relaxed, and high-tech US military backed by amoral corporate powers", a direct parallel of the changing military culture of the 1980's. However, this server is not based directly on the 1986 movie, but rather the 2013 game, from my understanding, so that's not much of an argument here.

A VERY compelling argument in favor of battlefield executions, however, is the existence of the CLF. The CLF is the wildcard that allows the marines to be more than glorified exterminators hopping from colony to colony killing little alien pests that colonists cant take care of. It also indicates that there is general insurrective attitude amongst the outer-rim colonies, with CLF numbers dwarfing the entirety of the USCM.

Now if the only real problems the marines faced were bug hunts and border standoffs with UPP, executions probably wouldn't take place much at all, but in the case of civil war and treason presented by the CLF, executions seem more realistic and necessary. Fighting an enemy is one thing, but when that enemy happens to be your own citizens, the rules have to change in order to protect marine lives from sabotage, mutiny, and any other threat to the USCM structure.

[Philby0]

When you are on a high pop round that is packed to the brim with people who would stab you in the back for a barrel charger you need to have somebody who can put some fear into them

Going along with this the average marine doesn't give two shits who the command staff is, they don't care about who is in the right when power struggles start happening, all they care about is having an excuse to finally shoot fellow marines. Given that the CO can be lynched at any time if the shitbirds start getting riled up and jump at the opportunity for a mutiny, it makes perfect sense to me that the CO execute anybody who threatens the chain of command in any way.

Well, the risk of mutiny isn't really a greytide problem, since mutinies must be approved by staff anyway.

Fear isn't the same at all. Working with fear, marines won't respect you. That's when they'll backstab you, or ignore orders and go do whatever on the colony, or threaten command. Fearful marines do the job because they're scared of the alternative, when the commander really makes themselves appreciated, the marines want to do their job, and will put more effort into it.

However, this server is not based directly on the 1986 movie, but rather the 2013 game, from my understanding, so that's not much of an argument here.

It's based on the Aliens movie, takes a lot of lore from the AvP universe, some things from videogames that have been made, like alien castes and all. I'm pretty sure (and hope) none is based on the Colonial Marines game. Nobody liked that thing anyway. So yeah your argument on military culture of the 80s holds.

[davidofmk771]

It's based on the Aliens movie, takes a lot of lore from the AvP universe, some things from videogames that have been made, like alien castes and all. I'm pretty sure (and hope) none is based on the Colonial Marines game. Nobody liked that thing anyway. So yeah your argument on military culture of the 80s holds.

If thats the case, also keep in mind that the USS Sulaco was deployed from Earth on her final mission. The culture portrayed in Aliens could be very different from the culture of the outer-rim colonies where CLF is a constant threat. The Almayer is not on a special response mission like the Sulaco was, but rather just a standard patrol of heavily-contested space filled with pirates, CLF, and bordering a podunk UPP industrial facility. With all this in mind, the commander of the Almayer is probably a bit quicker to shut down potential mutiny than some posh officer from Sol.

[Philby0]

To be clear, I'm not against battlefield executions, I'd rather they stay in the game. I think this the abuse is getting slightly too important to be ignored.

[davidofmk771]

To be clear, I'm not against battlefield executions, I'd rather they stay in the game. I think this the abuse is getting slightly too important to be ignored.

Do you have any specific examples?

In the context of insults, its important to understand that insulting an officer is a very basic example of undermining authority, and in the military, authority is the only thing that holds it all together. Even saying "You're a dick" is not only evidence that you do not intend to follow orders, but also incites other marines against the commander.

If this was an intervention-based conflict in some war-torn sector of the Three World Empire, perhaps the rules would mirror the current attitudes of the US military. In the CM universe, however, there is a silent insurrection bubbling over into full-blown civil war when the Almayer arrives at whatever destination we happen to be playing in any given round, and command's tolerance for insubordination would present itself accordingly.

[Philby0]

In the context of insults, its important to understand that insulting an officer is a very basic example of undermining authority, and in the military, authority is the only thing that holds it all together. Even saying "You're a dick" is not only evidence that you do not intend to follow orders, but also incites other marines against the commander.

If you had the power to kill whoever you wanted, would you execute those who insult you ?

[Voldirs]

In the context of insults, its important to understand that insulting an officer is a very basic example of undermining authority, and in the military, authority is the only thing that holds it all together. Even saying "You're a dick" is not only evidence that you do not intend to follow orders, but also incites other marines against the commander.

Thats why you have standart execution procedure.

As for roleplay, if my character would see CO decapitating a boot for him calling CO a dick, it would be counted as really crazy move. Marines do not follow crazy commanders. Sometimes they try to blow commander's head off as a reaction.

[davidofmk771]

If you had the power to kill whoever you wanted, would you execute those who insult you ?

Thats why you have standart execution procedure.

As for roleplay, if my character would see CO decapitating a boot for him calling CO a dick, it would be counted as really crazy move. Marines do not follow crazy commanders. Sometimes they try to blow commander's head off as a reaction.

All of this is ignoring context. If a marine ran up to the commander and said "Your a dick!!!" before briefing started, an execution would be insane and possibly rule-breaking. If, however, a marine insults the commander and his orders during the height of the xenomorph frenzy, they are putting the operation in jeopardy by inciting others against command via the radio.

Like I said, if you have any examples of ridiculous battlefield executions it would help your case a lot. I haven't witnessed too many in my time, honestly, as I mainly stick to combat roles, but most of the ones I've seen seemed timely and rational given the context.

[Philby0]

All of this is ignoring context. If a marine ran up to the commander and said "Your a dick!!!" before briefing started, an execution would be insane and possibly rule-breaking. If, however, a marine insults the commander and his orders during the height of the xenomorph frenzy, they are putting the operation in jeopardy by inciting others against command via the radio.

One soldier refusing to fight and complaining isn't "putting the operation in jeopardy", they're just not fighting. Even if they're trying to get others to rebel, they're only talking. There's a reason we have marine law and a brig. There's no reason to go kill that marine just for that.

Like I said, if you have any examples of ridiculous battlefield executions it would help your case a lot. I haven't witnessed too many in my time, honestly, as I mainly stick to combat roles, but most of the ones I've seen seemed timely and rational given the context.

I don't have a case, this is a discussion topic. Just because a battlefield execution isn't ridiculous doesn't mean it's legitimate or justified. We're on a server with a decent amount of RP, player and character are separate. A player can never do anything really wrong, it's a videogame. But if the character acts like a psychopath and executes someone in cold blood for little things, other characters WILL see that one as a psychopath. Characters have IRL standards when it comes to how they react to things.

[shyshadow]

To be clear, I'm not against battlefield executions, I'd rather they stay in the game. I think this the abuse is getting slightly too important to be ignored.

I agree fully with this statement, I've had the whitelist for about 3 to 4 months. I honestly don't remember, but not once have I actually battle field executed anyone. Maybe kind of, but it was more of a infection thing going on so. I don't count that as he was infected. I haven't done it once and I feel extremely pissed that COs think, because they can. Means they should. While you don't need to give a warning. Sometimes it's better to threaten with an execution, due to the fact if they are roleplaying properly, it should end in your favor.

Recent commanders have gained more executions than I have in months. That's saying something, it's clearly saying you don't need to execute everyone who undermines you. Threaten them, give them a warning IC. Tell them to cut their shit. You're the commander of the USCM. Not the fucking USSR, or a Nazi. This is a military operation, where people's words are just words. You feel genuinely threatened by words, you have no faith in yourself as a Commander, nor do you have faith in the corps. In my IC perspective. You're a coward with the authority to do as you please. As a Commander, your job is to increase the enjoyment of a round by adding a higher standard of roleplay.

Blatantly executing people, because you can. Is not high quality roleplay. It's a selfish act that should be viewed as being grossly immature. I was a CO once, and I was mad at an Admiral whom boarded my ship because he was literally delimbing brigged marines. I was promptly normally executed. He had all the ability to execute me, and yet he didn't. Because whom ever was that Admiral, had a good sense of roleplay. It would've been boring and wouldn't have contributed to the round at all. I undermined him, calling him an idiot. Etc. But he had me brigged and executed.

Anyway, a message to all COs.

Don't be a fucking cunt, stop with the BEs. They should be extremely rare, and used when someone is a genuine threat. Not a possible threat, not undermining you. Not insulting you. Literally fucking up the operation through actions. I haven't BE'd in 4 months. Some new comers have racked up dozens of BEs in a week. Stop. Please.

[HappytoHelp]

Snip

YES.

[taketheshot56]

I agree fully with this statement, I've had the whitelist for about 3 to 4 months. I honestly don't remember, but not once have I actually battle field executed anyone

[HappytoHelp]

Oh, darn.

In reality, though, wow, he field executed one person! Someone stop this menace because clearly he's as bad as the CO's that go on "execution sprees"!

[shyshadow]

[Ghodere]

I like them, and would prefer to see more rather than fewer, personally. I think they spice up a round and add memorability, as well as affording good opportunities for RP all around, including for the executed. Certainly everyone remembers the round where the CO gets a bit powercrazy and executes a few more than he should, whereas the round otherwise might be hardly noteworthy at all.

[shyshadow]

I like them, and would prefer to see more rather than fewer, personally. I think they spice up a round and add memorability, as well as affording good opportunities for RP all around, including for the executed. Certainly everyone remembers the round where the CO gets a bit powercrazy and executes a few more than he should, whereas the round otherwise might be hardly noteworthy at all.

Sooo, you believe people should be taken out of the round. For "Spicy Roleplay" rather than actually being rational and not doing it? Alright.

[Sailor Dave]

The issue I see with battlefield executions is a matter of effort. Commanders don't feel like going through due process, and so rather than actually dealing with the problem like an adult, going through proper procedure to punish, arrest and/or execute someone, the commander blasts their head off -accompanied by a witty one-liner- so they don't have to deal with it.

It's lazy, it's grossly incompetent, and it is not immersive nor, in my opinion, conductive to roleplay in any other way than inciting a well-deserved mutiny. It can be, and there will absolutely be times where a commander has no choice, but that isn't how it's being used for the most part. Note that I'm not taking issue with the mechanic itself, only on how it's being used.

[Renomaki]

Honestly, I am not a fan of it, or at least not a fan of the whole "you make me mad, INSTANT DEATH UPON YOU" version of it, which a lot of COs tend to do I notice.

While I'm not a fan of executions in general, if I am forced to put someone down, I at least try to make it interesting. It is why I prefer classic executions over battlefield executions, because it gives everyone something interesting to observe, both living and dead. There is just something so enjoyable about organizing a firing squad and giving someone a proper, stylish execution, compared to just pulling a Mataba on someone and blowing their head off without much creativity.

It takes a lot to get me to pull a battlefield execution, because as mentioned, they tend to create a lot of salt if done poorly. One recent execution that I had conducted was on my own CMP, who refused to let the CL out of the brig after Weyland clearly threatened legal action and possible bodily harm to the crew of the Almayer. I didn't WANT to do it, and I made it very clear ICly that I didn't want to resort to that. But alas, he refused to violate his own beliefs despite the risks it would cause, so with remorse, I had him executed on the spot. Mind you, this wasn't instant either, as I provided lots of forward warning as to what was to come... Which is how I'd prefer to do it.

Because see, COs are expected to be good RPers. If you are going to execute someone, at the very least you could try to make it interesting before they die. How you handle it can say a lot about you, in fact.

For instance, the COs that are quick to BE at a moment's notice tend to have short tempers. COs that enjoy BEs too often could be considered cruel and sadistic. And COs that often avoid opportunities to BE someone despite it being very appropriate at the moment could be viewed as soft and/or pushovers. I myself suppose I land in the "soft" area, although others may disagree with me.

[Ghodere]

Sooo, you believe people should be taken out of the round. For "Spicy Roleplay" rather than actually being rational and not doing it? Alright.

Sure, people get taken out of the round all the time for more trivial and less engaging reasons. If everyone were rational and measured nothing interesting would ever happen.

[TehSpoderman]

What I want to know is why battlefield executions exist in the first place.