Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,8 (click to see context) from:
In general, anyone whose CharacterAlignment tends toward the lawful - [[LawfulGood good]], [[LawfulEvil bad]], [[LawfulStupid dumb]] or [[LawfulNeutral neutral]] - will be liable to this trope. Conversely, tricksier works or characters will often feature ExactWords, LoopholeAbuse or BotheringByTheBook (sub-)versions of this trope. Be especially [[BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor wary]] of how this trope will be used by any LiteralGenie.
Arguably, though, the trope can be understood on another level: How an author treats people following extreme orders is important to the moral stance of a work. That is, as well as it being a throw-away line the concept is treated seriously in some works.
We're used to the negative side take: For example, soldiers burning a village to the ground to deny an enemy army resources. When pressed as to the fate of the homeless starving villagers they are "Just Following Orders."
The positive take on this trope, often related to the presence of those acting in a LawfulGood way, tends to slip by unnoticed. One example that comes to mind is in ''{{Series/Band of Brothers}}'': "Easy Company" moving into a position they know the Germans have their guns calibrated for. If asked why they are doing such a suicidal thing, they might have replied they were "Just Following Orders". Just wars are won by people following orders, too. Another time when it's nice to see orders obeyed is when the orders say things like, "don't murder any babies". After all, it's not as though war crimes ''always'' originate at the highest ranks -- sometimes, it's the soldier and not the officer who needs to be shouted down, with orders being the only thing ''preventing'' a massacre rather than the thing that's going to cause one. For that matter, doing anything LawfulGood, including putting out fires or rescuing injured people requires orders. (Really, the whole question of how to make good orders enforceable while leaving bad orders breakable is probably one of the dilemmas of any system of authority -- and also a [[ToBeLawfulOrGood main moral hazard]] of {{Lawful Good}}ness.)
Arguably, though, the trope can be understood on another level: How an author treats people following extreme orders is important to the moral stance of a work. That is, as well as it being a throw-away line the concept is treated seriously in some works.
We're used to the negative side take: For example, soldiers burning a village to the ground to deny an enemy army resources. When pressed as to the fate of the homeless starving villagers they are "Just Following Orders."
The positive take on this trope, often related to the presence of those acting in a LawfulGood way, tends to slip by unnoticed. One example that comes to mind is in ''{{Series/Band of Brothers}}'': "Easy Company" moving into a position they know the Germans have their guns calibrated for. If asked why they are doing such a suicidal thing, they might have replied they were "Just Following Orders". Just wars are won by people following orders, too. Another time when it's nice to see orders obeyed is when the orders say things like, "don't murder any babies". After all, it's not as though war crimes ''always'' originate at the highest ranks -- sometimes, it's the soldier and not the officer who needs to be shouted down, with orders being the only thing ''preventing'' a massacre rather than the thing that's going to cause one. For that matter, doing anything LawfulGood, including putting out fires or rescuing injured people requires orders. (Really, the whole question of how to make good orders enforceable while leaving bad orders breakable is probably one of the dilemmas of any system of authority -- and also a [[ToBeLawfulOrGood main moral hazard]] of {{Lawful Good}}ness.)
to:
In general, anyone whose CharacterAlignment tends toward the lawful - -- [[LawfulGood good]], [[LawfulEvil bad]], [[LawfulStupid dumb]] dumb]], or [[LawfulNeutral neutral]] - -- will be liable to this trope. Conversely, tricksier works or characters will often feature ExactWords, LoopholeAbuse LoopholeAbuse, or BotheringByTheBook (sub-)versions of this trope. Be especially [[BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor wary]] of how this trope will be used by any LiteralGenie.
Arguably, though, the trope can be understood on another level: How an author treats people following extreme orders is important to the moral stance of a work. That is, as well as it being a throw-awayline line, the concept is treated seriously in some works.
We're used to the negative side take: For example, soldiers burning a village to the ground to deny an enemy army resources. When pressed as to the fate of the homeless starvingvillagers villagers, they are "Just Following Orders."
The positive take on this trope, often related to the presence of those acting in a LawfulGood way, tends to slip by unnoticed. One example that comes to mind is in ''{{Series/Band of Brothers}}'': "Easy Company" moving into a position they know the Germans have their guns calibrated for. If asked why they are doing such a suicidal thing, they might have replied they were "Just Following Orders". Just wars are won by people following orders, too. Another time when it's nice to see orders obeyed is when the orders say things like, "don't murder any babies". After all, it's not as though war crimes ''always'' originate at the highest ranks -- sometimes, it's the soldier and not the officer who needs to be shouted down, with orders being the only thing ''preventing'' a massacre rather than the thing that's going to cause one. For that matter, doing anything LawfulGood, including putting out fires or rescuing injuredpeople people, requires orders. (Really, the whole question of how to make good orders enforceable while leaving bad orders breakable is probably one of the dilemmas of any system of authority -- and also a [[ToBeLawfulOrGood main moral hazard]] of {{Lawful Good}}ness.)
Arguably, though, the trope can be understood on another level: How an author treats people following extreme orders is important to the moral stance of a work. That is, as well as it being a throw-away
We're used to the negative side take: For example, soldiers burning a village to the ground to deny an enemy army resources. When pressed as to the fate of the homeless starving
The positive take on this trope, often related to the presence of those acting in a LawfulGood way, tends to slip by unnoticed. One example that comes to mind is in ''{{Series/Band of Brothers}}'': "Easy Company" moving into a position they know the Germans have their guns calibrated for. If asked why they are doing such a suicidal thing, they might have replied they were "Just Following Orders". Just wars are won by people following orders, too. Another time when it's nice to see orders obeyed is when the orders say things like, "don't murder any babies". After all, it's not as though war crimes ''always'' originate at the highest ranks -- sometimes, it's the soldier and not the officer who needs to be shouted down, with orders being the only thing ''preventing'' a massacre rather than the thing that's going to cause one. For that matter, doing anything LawfulGood, including putting out fires or rescuing injured
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
Expect GodwinsLaw to follow if someone makes this claim to justify something morally questionable, due to the association with Nuremberg. Not to be confused with SubordinateExcuse. Note that, in RealLife, the Nuremberg defense is ''not'' valid in international law: the famous trial determined that when a soldier is given an unlawful order, they have a duty to refuse to follow that order.
to:
Expect GodwinsLaw to follow if someone makes this claim to justify something morally questionable, due to the association with Nuremberg. Not to be confused with SubordinateExcuse. Note that, in RealLife, the Nuremberg defense is ''not'' valid in international law: the famous trial determined trials affirmed that when a soldier is given an unlawful order, they have a duty to refuse to follow that order.order. This interpretation is, in fact, OlderThanTheyThink, [[http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm dating back to 1799]] in the United States military alone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
Expect [=~Godwin's Law~=] to follow if someone makes this claim to justify something morally questionable, due to the association with Nuremberg. Not to be confused with SubordinateExcuse. Note that, in RealLife, the Nuremberg defense is ''not'' valid in international law: the famous trial determined that when a soldier is given an unlawful order, they have a duty to refuse to follow that order.
to:
Expect [=~Godwin's Law~=] GodwinsLaw to follow if someone makes this claim to justify something morally questionable, due to the association with Nuremberg. Not to be confused with SubordinateExcuse. Note that, in RealLife, the Nuremberg defense is ''not'' valid in international law: the famous trial determined that when a soldier is given an unlawful order, they have a duty to refuse to follow that order.order.
----
----
