 How do you role play military people?, HOW DO ROLE PLAY!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?! |
  |
 Nov 7 2006, 03:53 AM
Post
#176
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker  Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456  |
It really doesn't take much chutzpah or intimidation, according to several experiments on human reactions of authority (as well as some anecdotal incidents). All you need is a tenuous claim to authority to get reasonable people to do what you want without question. Take, for example, the Strip Search Prank Call Scam. There have been over 70 reported incidents of store managers receiving calls from someone claiming to be a police officer and being ordered by this supposed officer to strip search an employee who was supposedly suspected of theft. On the most tenuous and unverifiable claims, people with no police training performed full body cavity searches on employees who could have left at any time but instead complied fully. In some cases, the "police officer" on the phone even instructed the store manager to have sex with the "suspect" and in at least one case the individuals complied. And apparently, "a person claiming to be a cop over the phone told me to do it" is not a valid justification for rape, in case anyone is wondering. Some have made that mistake. In these cases, both the store managers and the "suspects" went along with the supposed police officer despite the lack of any verification of the claims and any consequences for not following through after all, what are they going to do if you just hang up? Call back? Likewise, there is no way the managers could really force the employees to strip against their will, they acceded to the requests our of respect for apparent authority rather than out of fear of violence and could have walked out at any time (a job at McDonalds isn't really worth getting raped over, although I might accede if the manager was a woman and she was hot). The Milgram Experiment, shows that most people will commit torture and murder at the word of a tenuous authority figure. Just a white lab coat will do. The actual incidence, however, depends on the proximity of the authority figure. People are more likely to go all the way if the supposed authority figure is looking over their shoulders and more likely to assert their own morality if the authority figure is issuing orders from a distance over the phone. Likewise, the Stanford Prison Experiment shows this phenomenon and more. The "prisoners", undergrads who participated in exchanged for money, endured abuse upon abuse and humiliation upon humiliation. When offered "parole" in exchange for their financial compensation all agreed whole-heartedly. But, when this "parole" was denied none requested to leave the experiment outright. They needed permission from the faux authority figures. Military training heightens this deference to authority to an absurd degree, to the point that most would do anything on the order of a guy wearing the right uniform with the right insignia. Heck, there doesn't even have to be a uniform. There is an old joke that you should never stand still around Marines because they might think that you're a formation and fall in. It isn't an exaggeration and it isn't just marines. Spontaneous formations happen even in civilian life. When people see a guy standing and think there should be a line, they form a line behind him. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Nov 7 2006, 05:01 AM
Post
#177
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 178 Joined: 4-September 05 Member No.: 7,682 |
I agree with most of that, but there is one thing you seem to have left out. Most people are that sheepish, but it takes... something to break out of that mold and exploit that behavior in others. Maybe chutzpah or intimidation aren't it, but I can't currently think of an appropriate word. The quality I have in mind isn't exactly charisma and I don't want to say "authority" either as that is the result and not the cause.
Also, there are still differing degrees of deference. That is why I never advanced beyond E-4; I was disobedient, stubborn, tactless, confrontational, and cared more about doing my duty than obeying orders or licking boots. What you have illustrated is a general guideline of average behavior, but not a 100%, everybody-is-like-this rule so you are correct by saying "most". |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 05:17 AM
Post
#178
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
There's a spectrum, though. I'm going to call that quality "charisma" for this discussion, and explicitly make everything that isn't part of that quality that usually gets lumped in with charisma not a part of "charisma" with respect to this discussion.
The thing is, a lot varies on how much charisma you have. Some people can command obedience without any assistance, some people can only do it by virtue of a badge or lab coat (or a sign on their door, or some external assistance of that sort), but nonetheless those people are still able to command a certain amount of obedience. Other people just can't do it, even if you dress them up in full regalia. My point being that if you stick someone in the trappings of authority, they're a lot more likely to be able to exploit automatic obedience than if you've just got a person in nondescript attire. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 03:47 PM
Post
#179
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,286 Joined: 24-May 05 From: A 10x10 room with an orc and a treasure chest Member No.: 7,409 |
My First Sergent says there are two types of leaders; social and those with authority. This may be what ya'll are getting at.
Socail leaders- May not have the rank or authority to tell someone to do something but they have a quality that gets people to do things they want or to defer to them. Authority- Actually has the power to order. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 7 2006, 07:14 PM
Post
#180
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
Just read today that an american film about that experiment is in planning (There is a pretty good german one inspired by it - Das Experiment (The Experiment)). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 8 2006, 01:11 AM
Post
#181
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 178 Joined: 4-September 05 Member No.: 7,682 |
Angelone - I beg to differ. The best leader-type I ever saw was the department head on my first ship. As a Dept. Head, he was right under the Executive Officer so he had the authority. He never had to pull rank on us; we would've gone to hell for him because he treated us fairly and stood up for us when needed. We did our job and he had our back.
Get in trouble? He has a word with the CO (likely a few four-letter ones as well) and you're off. Yet he also could and did relate with us. Maybe it was because he started as an E-2. He was one of the guys who happened to have gold leafs on his collar tips. He was one of those people that could get obedience without a uniform. The fact that he could stand five feet away and put a man nearly a foot taller than him in a headlock before you saw him move didn't hurt either. There was a cultural difference between us sailors and the Marines we babysat. They respected rules more than we did. They seemed more Marine regardless of their attire while us Navy types were essentially the same regardless of what we were (or weren't) wearing. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 8 2006, 05:09 AM
Post
#182
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,286 Joined: 24-May 05 From: A 10x10 room with an orc and a treasure chest Member No.: 7,409 |
So he was a social leader who happened to have rank.
I know quite a few like him, my First Sergent being one of them. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 9 2006, 04:50 AM
Post
#183
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 178 Joined: 4-September 05 Member No.: 7,682 |
Ooops! I misread the "may not" as a "do not". :embarassed:
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 04:44 AM
Post
#184
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I think there's a valid reason for encouraging this deference in the military, though. When tactics require you to sacrifice a pawn to win the game, you can't afford to have the pawn mutiny and tell you to go f*ck yourself. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 11 2006, 04:55 AM
Post
#185
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Valid to you. Maybe not valid to the pawn. And sometimes it doesn't matter to the pawn if you get fucked.
Sometimes it does, of course. People are much better at judging highly available risks and rewards (short-term and personal) than highly unavailable risks and rewards (long-term and/or distributed/for other people/etc.). Nevertheless, the fact that it helps the guy giving the orders doesn't, in and of itself, make it "valid" for any meaningful value of valid. I personally must admit that I would rather have a totally ineffectual military than a military where pawns are trained to be sacrificed, but I can also dig that other people rank "having a chance at resisting invasion" higher on the importance scale. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 05:11 AM
Post
#186
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 05:19 AM
Post
#187
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
There's always PMs, if you want.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 06:26 AM
Post
#188
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 178 Joined: 4-September 05 Member No.: 7,682 |
That is why Warrant Officers and 'Mustangs' are so highly respected; both were enlisted men/women at one point in their career. Sure, an O-1 may learn a few theoretical things in school, but an O-1E or W-3 is better at thinking about what their subordinates will endure as a result of their orders. They remember what it was like when they were the subordinate and are far less likely to give an unpopular order without a good reason. They are also generally 'smarter' than ROTC/Academy guys due to age and experience. This combination of wisdom and empathy tends to earn them a lot of respect. If nothing else, they have seniority. That officer I was talking about earlier had over 30 years in the Navy.
Back to the topic - Roleplaying a military character can be a tricky thing. There are many variables to dictate the behavior of that character, as there are for civilians. However there are some things pointed out here that are fairly unique to the military. For instance, how many civilians get obsessive-compulsive about razor-creases in their pants? But here are also variations depending on the military. The modern USN is laxer than the USMC, and there is no saying how either branch will be affected by the US becoming the UCAS... other than that they will continue using abbreviations out the yang! :lol: And then there are other nations, other cultures. Technically al-Qaida could be considered a military group of sorts (for role-playing purposes) as they seem to have a rank structure and all, but there is no confusing them for Navy SEALs. Samurai in feudal Japan, Viet Cong, and Nazi 'Stormtroopers' were military men as well and they were all quite different both from our military and from the respective civilian populations of their homelands. Hell, our miltary is quite different than it was back in the days of Blue-versus-Gray. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 06:30 AM
Post
#189
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
al-Qaida is more fiction than organization. It is a name, a rallying point, not much of a hierarchical organization. You join al-Qaida in one of two ways: finding a group that calls itself al-Qaida and joining it, or building a group and calling it al-Qaida.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 07:19 AM
Post
#190
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Also, remember that the rules are not the same for everyone no matter what the rule books tell you. A little fame and a couple of medals lets you stretch regulations very very far.
Case in point, when my father was stationed in Japan he had a roommate who never actually used the room. he had a place off base somewhere. At one point, there was a big inspection by a high-ranking officer and everyone on the base spent a great deal of effort preparing, making sure everything was in perfect military order. Everyone, except my father's roommate. He came in just a few minutes before the inspections started with a bag of dirty clothes, dumped them on his unused bed, and carefully placed his Medal of Honor on top of the pile. Needless to say, everyone else found themselves being chewed out for even the most minor infractions which he passed with perfect marks. There's a lot of stuff that you don't have to put up with if you have the right medals. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 11:38 AM
Post
#191
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
okay, i'll bite. i'll set a two-post (on my part, including this one) limit on this discussion so it doesn't derail the thread too badly. a) what is the point of having a military in the first place, in your view, if they're not going to be effective? b) as a willingness to sacrifice one's own life in defense of one's country is the basic choice upon which voluntarily joining the military is built, why shouldn't the military train its recruits to follow through with that choice in the heat of battle? for b), i'm not saying that everyone who joins the military does so because they want a chance to die for their country (i joined for college money, and got out a the first opportunity), i'm saying that the choice of joining the military is the choice of dying for your country--they're one and the same. oh, also, i'd like to take this opportunity to heap scorn and derision on your ideas, your education, and your parentage. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 11 2006, 12:00 PM
Post
#192
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
A military is required when two countries have a difference of opinion or one needs more resorces and the next country over has what they need.
The whole point of being in the military is not to sacrafice yourself for your country, though some personal sacrafice is nessisary sometimes. The standard mindset is to try and make the other guy do the eternal sacrafice for his country, thereby leaving you alive to fight on or whatever. Major thing to note is that this is during an active battle. Most of the time, military personnel just want to maintain the peace by showing they are there but not acting overly aggressive, thereby preventing the other guy from doing something stupid. And before you say the world would be a better place if there were no militaries, I would agree with you that it would be great if that would happen, but its unrealistic. You would have to remove all the weapons on the planet, from projectile to melee, then remove all rocks, sticks and animals because these too can be used to attack someone else, the base form of war. Even then, every human has natural weapons in the form of hands and feet, therefor you must just get rid of all humans to get rid of war all together. This doesnt even take into effect that animals themselves fight and kill each other everyday, even in their own species. Hence the only way to stop war is to destroy all life, but hey, No war equals a happy ending. :D |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 01:18 PM
Post
#193
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 3-October 06 Member No.: 9,527 |
One thing to note in roleplaying is a veteran troop (read Career E-4) is VERY likely to tell you to do something anatomically improbable if you are telling them to sacrifice themselves. They like us as drivers, but as grunts we are useless. I don't think we've had that much about junior enlisted. There are two types, new recruits who are still enthusiastic about everything, and career junior enlisted, who dont mind the lifestyle but either dont have the attitude or motivation to do what it takes to get promoted. The former tend to be very enthusiastic, but occasionally inept at tasks (these guys are the security guards you waltz by but the minute they realise whats up they call out the guard) the latter tend to be rather lazier, and more likely to cover their own asses (they spot the fake ID and kick you out, but if they realise they messed up later they tend to drop dimes) Z P.S. Dropping Dimes - ratting out someone else who may have had something to do with the incident. It should be noted that being in an FA HQ Battery I have learned a lot about dropping dimes. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 11 2006, 01:40 PM
Post
#194
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
One should not underestimate the effectiveness of an untrained and disorganized civilian militia armed with a shitpot load of cheap guns. Just look at Iraq. And if they're organized, even better (Viet-Cong, anyone?) Sure, it isn't ideal but.... WOLVERINES! :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 11 2006, 01:55 PM
Post
#195
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
Oh yeah, an army of cloned Logans running around. :P
Schnickity Schnicky Shnack! 8) Anyways, I didnt throw out all the different scenarios because I wouldnt have enough time in the day to list them all. I just threw out the most basic versions of it. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 04:29 PM
Post
#196
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 3-October 06 Member No.: 9,527 |
What is making the insurgency in Iraq so succesful (against the US military) isn't the guys with rifles. They are all either dead or taking up new careers. The actual people doing the damage are the small teams of bombers setting up some *really* advanced ordanance on the side of the road, and snipers getting fracking lucky. A small arms ambush of a US convoy usually ends in one of those "Iraqi ambushers massacred" columns on page 18 of the local paper. Z |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 11 2006, 05:26 PM
Post
#197
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Advanced ordinance? Some of it, certainly, but… well…
There are degrees of effectiveness. A military without near-automatic response to commands will be less effective than one with, but still more effective than an impromptu militia that forms only when a threat is immediately present. That said, I wouldn't shed tears over not having a military, though I might be a bit sad if and when the quite-possibly-inevitable conquerer arrived.
Because in an ideal world, people willing to sacrifice their lives in defense of their country (or whatever else) would not need to be "trained" to do so. Granted, we don't exactly live in an ideal world. Still, I have not yet become old and world-weary enough to discard my ideals simply because they do not match our reality at present. Just wait ten or twenty years ;) ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 11 2006, 06:46 PM
Post
#198
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's not how it works. when things are happening, you don't act with your full faculties. you react according to the threats presented and the methods you are most comfortable with. the whole point of training is to get you so comfortable with the proper response that you fall back on it even when you're blind with terror and have lost pints of blood from your several wounds. combat happens way too fast to process rational thought--which is what you're saying soldiers should be using when they receive a polite suggestion that they could charge that machinegun nest over there, if it won't inconvenience them too much. you're asking people to make rational decisions while they're being shot at. nobody makes rational decisions when they're being shot at. that has nothing to do with the world being ideal or non-ideal; it's just how humans work. i have to come back to the point that when someone volunteers to join the armed forces, they are in doing so answering "yes" to the question of "would you die for your country?" they're making that choice rationally, while in full possession of their faculties, and with plenty of time to think it through--ahead of time. two years later, when they get ordered to charge that machinegun and they die doing it, don't say it's sad because the Man gave them no choice. they had a choice, right at the start, when they swore the oath. to not charge that machinegun nest when ordered would be to go back on their oath. Kage, in your ideal world, do people fulfill their promises? even when it's really hard to do so? to answer Konsaki's point, dying for your country is not the point of being a soldier; you're correct. it is, indeed, the basic point of being a soldier to make the other bastard die for his. that doesn't change the fact that when you join the armed forces, you are volunteering to die for your country if it becomes necessary. you can't lawfully (or morally, or ethically) refuse an order because "you didn't sign up to get killed". this is my second and final post on the subject (in this thread), as promised. to sum up: when you voluntarily join the military, you voluntarily agree to die for your country if necessary; this agreement is still binding even if a situation comes up in which you might actually die for your country. even in an ideal world, humans would not think or act rationally in dangerous situations, because rational thought takes too long and we'd all be killed through our own inaction; trained instinct is the surest method to meet your goals while in a dangerous situation. therefore, soldiers should continue to be trained to follow orders, even orders that will kill them, because when they volunteered to join the military, they made a goal of keeping their nation safe--and placed it at a higher priority than the goal of continued personal survival.
most of it nowadays is very, very low-tech. they're actually using string-pulled detonators, in a lot of them. i'll grant that they're really, really clever; but most of the advancement in IEDs has actually been away from high-tech solutions. you can't jam a string, after all. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 11 2006, 07:24 PM
Post
#199
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 3-October 06 Member No.: 9,527 |
The bombs that kill US troops come in 2 categories.
The "they killed them with WHAT?" stuff that tends to be dump trucks with 400 pounds of C4. (or as we call it, Rocks fall, everyone dies) or a tiny bomb that drives a magic bullet through 8 layers of armor and through a guys jugular. Again DMs option or "rocks fall, everyone dies" The other is HIGHLY advanced bombs, shaped charges, Explosively Forged Projectiles, stuff that HAS punched through an M-1 (from the side natch) and I've talked to the crews. Slowly and LOUD because their hearing is still not all there. Jammers are all well and good, but using them properly is not a strong suit. I've got a good deal of college and I can tell you that the doctrine we have developed for using ours has me wishing I was either higher ranked, that one of the higher ups would listen to me and READ a book about how LOS radio works, or that I wasnt associated with it at all. Z EDIT: Removed the quotes... sorry about that |
|
|
|
|
Nov 11 2006, 07:35 PM
Post
#200
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Shaped charges creating explosively formed projectiles are definitely more advanced than sticking detcord into 155mm shells and triggering them with a tripwire, but I usually wouldn't call them "*really* advanced". Depends on the exact setup, of course, but with some tools, suitable sheet metal and a few pages from a military demolitions manual a simple EFP-based explosive device is not very hard to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th January 2025 - 02:58 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.