(In)voluntary Duty

[Vynticator]

Would you count service in the British Navy in 1890s as Involuntary Duty?

I think the penalty for disobeying orders or going AWOL was court martial and probably death. The penalty for anyone related to or close friends with someone who was court martialled and executed would be intense social stigma.

Does this satisfy the "threats to family and friends" criterion from Basic set?

If the guy *wants* to serve when he signs up, can the Duty still be Involuntary due to the penalties if he should ever change his mind (pretty sure you couldn't just leave when you felt like it...)

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Vynticator

Would you count service in the British Navy in 1890s as Involuntary Duty?

I think the penalty for disobeying orders or going AWOL was court martial and probably death. The penalty for anyone related to or close friends with someone who was court martialled and executed would be intense social stigma.

Is this a substantially worse consequence than you suffer for failing a Duty that isn't Involuntary? In 1890 maybe. A century earlier though, when you could be hung if your employer says you robbed him, or imprisoned in conditions that might well be fatal for not paying a debt, probably not. And no, a "social stigma" is not a "threat to friends and family". An actual Social Stigma, in the sense of a real legal disability like being outlawed or enslaved could, but people might think poorly of them is not.

[Icelander]

In the 1890s, no. The character is a volunteer serving for a fixed term, his situation legally no different from a modern soldier or sailor during wartime. That's the baseline of Duty as a Disadvantage.

In earlier eras (until about 1814 in practice), when sailors were impressed by press-gangs, I would allow Involuntary Duty for sailors in the Royal Navy.

[Kromm]

Duty in a historical navy would count as Involuntary if it the seaman were enslaved or impressed. Merely being subject to military justice that's more severe than civilian justice would not count – that's part and parcel of being in the military in most times and places. The same goes for your family being stigmatized if you leave, which is pretty much the fate of deserters and traitors everywhere. "Serve or we'll kill your family!" would count, though I cannot think of any real examples of that.

In particular, the hair is split between "Sign up or we'll beat you to death/hang you/make you walk the plank – and stay or we'll do the same!" and merely "Thanks for signing up on your own. Be warned that we'll beat you to death/hang you/make you walk the plank if you desert." Generally, deserting is bad for voluntary and involuntary military service alike. It's the bit where you don't get to opt out of signing up and facing those threats that makes the difference. And yes, "threats" is meant to imply life-or-death physical danger, not merely a missed paycheck, demotion, dishonor, or whatever.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Duty in a historical navy would count as Involuntary if it the seaman were enslaved or impressed. Merely being subject to military justice that's more severe than civilian justice would not count – that's part and parcel of being in the military in most times and places. The same goes for your family being stigmatized if you leave, which is pretty much the fate of deserters and traitors everywhere. "Serve or we'll kill your family!" would count, though I cannot think of any real examples of that.

In particular, the hair is split between "Sign up or we'll beat you to death/hang you/make you walk the plank – and stay or we'll do the same!" and merely "Thanks for signing up on your own. Be warned that we'll beat you to death/hang you/make you walk the plank if you desert." Generally, deserting is bad for voluntary and involuntary military service alike. It's the bit where you don't get to opt out of signing up and facing those threats that makes the difference. And yes, "threats" is meant to imply life-or-death physical danger, not merely a missed paycheck, demotion, dishonor, or whatever.

Also, it was probably quite a bit better conditions then a factory job and certainly a number of owners would have you beaten up for not showing up for work.

[jason taylor]

The duties of the Royal Navy in the 1890s would have been rather like those of a Coast Guard. Surveying, hunting maritime criminals, disaster relief and so on. Colonial warfare they could only get involved in on the periphery as a naval force so they often sent large landing parties quite a ways inland to support the army. Riverine work of course would have been important to Colonial campaigning. Perhaps one of the more interesting places to put them would have been Indonesia; that region had some of the nastiest pirates in the world for a long time, may still have for all I know.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Vynticator

I think the penalty for disobeying orders or going AWOL was court martial and probably death. The penalty for anyone related to or close friends with someone who was court martialled and executed would be intense social stigma.

Also, I doubt this. The Royal Navy had a considerable problem with desertion during this period, bad enough to eventually force some reforms in 1912, but despite more than an thousand deserters a year as far as I can tell didn't execute anybody at all for running between Crimea and World War I. A handful of people for mutiny, which might possibly have been for encouraging your fellows to run (it wasn't so uncommon for deserters to jump ship in bunches) but not for desertion itself. Even during the actual wars, relatively few people were executed. A lot is made of the World War I cases these days, but the total number of executions there for all services is in the hundreds, even in the estimates of most of the conspiracy nut jobs who think the UK government is concealing some of them.
Deserters in peacetime 1890, well if they caught you, you are getting demoted, and might face some prison time, though that seems to have been spotty, but you'll have to have done something more than run to get executed. In fact there appear to be cases of recent deserters re-enlisting when World War I started up.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Also, I doubt this. The Royal Navy had a considerable problem with desertion during this period, bad enough to eventually force some reforms in 1912, but despite more than an thousand deserters a year as far as I can tell didn't execute anybody at all for running between Crimea and World War I. A handful of people for mutiny, which might possibly have been for encouraging your fellows to run (it wasn't so uncommon for deserters to jump ship in bunches) but not for desertion itself. Even during the actual wars, relatively few people were executed. A lot is made of the World War I cases these days, but the total number of executions there for all services is in the hundreds, even in the estimates of most of the conspiracy nut jobs who think the UK government is concealing some of them.
Deserters in peacetime 1890, well if they caught you, you are getting demoted, and might face some prison time, though that seems to have been spotty, but you'll have to have done something more than run to get executed. In fact there appear to be cases of recent deserters re-enlisting when World War I started up.

The UK government would have had no motive to conceal executions as concealed executions cannot encourage the others.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The UK government would have had no motive to conceal executions as concealed executions cannot encourage the others.

That's no barrier for a proper conspiracy theory.

Of course it's *obvious* they were using false charges of cowardice to execute potential socialist agitators and wouldn't want to admit that, or needed to off people who had seen the Germans (or angels, or lizard men, or aliens from Zeta Reticuli) consulting with the generals to plan deliberately failed attacks as part of their treasonous betrayal of [whoever].

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by malloyd

That's no barrier for a proper conspiracy theory.

Of course it's *obvious* they were using false charges of cowardice to execute potential socialist agitators and wouldn't want to admit that, or needed to off people who had seen the Germans (or angels, or lizard men, or aliens from Zeta Reticuli) consulting with the generals to plan deliberately failed attacks as part of their treasonous betrayal of [whoever].

I never thought of that. That's pretty good.