Killing POWs who just surrendered

[NotaNuffian]

I am not really working on my stories or even the poems right now, https://forum.scribblehub.com/threads/help-with-my-poems.7199/ you can help me out over here.

Context:
MC flees to a neighboring country after he almost getting mindraped by an old uncle who is one of the powerhouses in the country he is born in. The relationship between him and his country is awkward, a quarter of the nobles wants him dead because he is an upstart and a murderhobo who just slaughtered their sons and daughters over an argument; those who are dead wanted to enslave MC and get his power so... they asked for it.

Needless to say, MC dislikes people of authority.

As he is hitching a ride into the neighboring country's territory, the wagon got stopped by a platoon of knights and soldiers led by a baron of the neighboring country. The reason being that the noble wants the men in the wagon to serve as troops in a retarded warfare (retarded because it is a skirmish caused by the prince that MC will regicide later on) and the head of the wagon argues that:
A. It is stupid for the men to just follow a bunch of foreign troops to fight for their cause.
B. The noble has no jurisdiction to do that.

Cue stupid fight and after the baron knows that he is outmatched by MC, he surrenders under the wargame rules (ie unnecessary deaths of nobles should be kept to minimum and ransom to be provided to their captors). But MC did not comply as he believes that the baron will try to run/ not keep up to his end of the bargain and hunt MC later once he is free, something that the MC is catching a trend of because MC is a peasant.

Either way the baron is dead meat, but what is your take on the rule that the high officers should not be executed as POWs? Also MC killed all his troops regardless of whether they surrendered or fleeing, citing that a dead enemy is a good enemy.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

I am not really working on my stories or even the poems right now, https://forum.scribblehub.com/threads/help-with-my-poems.7199/ you can help me out over here.

Context:
MC flees to a neighboring country after he almost getting mindraped by an old uncle who is one of the powerhouses in the country he is born in. The relationship between him and his country is awkward, a quarter of the nobles wants him dead because he is an upstart and a murderhobo who just slaughtered their sons and daughters over an argument; those who are dead wanted to enslave MC and get his power so... they asked for it.

Needless to say, MC dislikes people of authority.

As he is hitching a ride into the neighboring country's territory, the wagon got stopped by a platoon of knights and soldiers led by a baron of the neighboring country. The reason being that the noble wants the men in the wagon to serve as troops in a retarded warfare (retarded because it is a skirmish caused by the prince that MC will regicide later on) and the head of the wagon argues that:
A. It is stupid for the men to just follow a bunch of foreign troops to fight for their cause.
B. The noble has no jurisdiction to do that.

Cue stupid fight and after the baron knows that he is outmatched by MC, he surrenders under the wargame rules (ie unnecessary deaths of nobles should be kept to minimum and ransom to be provided to their captors). But MC did not comply as he believes that the baron will try to run/ not keep up to his end of the bargain and hunt MC later once he is free, something that the MC is catching a trend of because MC is a peasant.

Either way the baron is dead meat, but what is your take on the rule that the high officers should not be executed as POWs? Also MC killed all his troops regardless of whether they surrendered or fleeing, citing that a dead enemy is a good enemy.

Listen man its petty damn hypocritical to kill some and spare others just cuz of their position. Its onl fair if you murder ALL of them.

Unless they are sexy women with big mommy milkers. Then they can live.

 

[Amok]

If it fits the story and MC's make-up, do it.


Battle of Agincourt, French lost about 400 nobles. Survivors ransomed(generally, this is why mercs and bandits would tend to keep a noble alive, like with Julius Ceasar: ransom.)

In war it is wise to take out leaders and sow confusion among the ranks, so if one fields a minor force against a major one, or is fighting a guerilla war, executing the leadership, disarming the troops, taking their supplies, and sending them away(which means the enemy now has to spend coin to buy new provisions) is a good strategy. I think this is your MC's rationale: Cut the head off the viper before it can slither under a rock to strike again.

I'd say the idea of not killing nobles is very western medieval and somewhat modern. Kings and Emperors of old held no qualms about decimating the nobility of conquered territories, or at least the figureheads so as to replace them with puppet rulers. Then you get the matter of honor, where in some cultures like Japanese and ancient greco/romano leaders/aristocrats would commit suicide in one form or another upon defeat (Cleopatra and her asp). The peasants/troops tend not to follow such examples, for if they do, total depopulation will soon be the result.
Same with POW's: if you kill all the enemy's peasant soldiers, and win the war, then your new territories won't have farmers, and will have a lot of vengeful family members prone to rebellion or dissent.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

I am not really working on my stories or even the poems right now, https://forum.scribblehub.com/threads/help-with-my-poems.7199/ you can help me out over here.

Context:
MC flees to a neighboring country after he almost getting mindraped by an old uncle who is one of the powerhouses in the country he is born in. The relationship between him and his country is awkward, a quarter of the nobles wants him dead because he is an upstart and a murderhobo who just slaughtered their sons and daughters over an argument; those who are dead wanted to enslave MC and get his power so... they asked for it.

Needless to say, MC dislikes people of authority.

As he is hitching a ride into the neighboring country's territory, the wagon got stopped by a platoon of knights and soldiers led by a baron of the neighboring country. The reason being that the noble wants the men in the wagon to serve as troops in a retarded warfare (retarded because it is a skirmish caused by the prince that MC will regicide later on) and the head of the wagon argues that:
A. It is stupid for the men to just follow a bunch of foreign troops to fight for their cause.
B. The noble has no jurisdiction to do that.

Cue stupid fight and after the baron knows that he is outmatched by MC, he surrenders under the wargame rules (ie unnecessary deaths of nobles should be kept to minimum and ransom to be provided to their captors). But MC did not comply as he believes that the baron will try to run/ not keep up to his end of the bargain and hunt MC later once he is free, something that the MC is catching a trend of because MC is a peasant.

Either way the baron is dead meat, but what is your take on the rule that the high officers should not be executed as POWs? Also MC killed all his troops regardless of whether they surrendered or fleeing, citing that a dead enemy is a good enemy.

^^ Expect the enemy to fight harder next time. Surrendering being risky is news that travels fast. Especially, if it was an organised surrender.

Spoiler: Image

“Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her.” Time Magazine 1944

 

[greyblob]

what is your take on the rule that the high officers should not be executed as POWs

Is this something you established? The reason people are often spared is to be used as political bargaining chips. A higher official would (usually) be worth more than a few dozen common solider. However, if there is more to be gained from someone's death than their weight as a hostage then the choice is rather obvious.
Killing a baron could have severe consequences, but if the MC doesn't care enough about politics, he should just cut off his head and be done with it.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Listen man its petty damn hypocritical to kill some and spare others just cuz of their position. Its onl fair if you murder ALL of them.

Unless they are sexy women with big mommy milkers. Then they can live.

Then I have to disappoint, because at the early second arc where the MC ends up meeting a Scarlett Johansson (pre-breast reduction)* assassin and neck grab her like how Apocalypse choked Mystique.

Cue awkward moment as the bar wench disguise is falling apart and MC being hormone raging eighteen yo got distracted and got a poisoned needle to the eye. As the female assassin thought she succeeded, MC steels himself and snap her neck, citing "equality to all".

*or Misono Mizuhara, or Sena Kashiwazaki... weeb.

If it fits the story and MC's make-up, do it.


Battle of Agincourt, French lost about 400 nobles. Survivors ransomed(generally, this is why mercs and bandits would tend to keep a noble alive, like with Julius Ceasar: ransom.)

In war it is wise to take out leaders and sow confusion among the ranks, so if one fields a minor force against a major one, or is fighting a guerilla war, executing the leadership, disarming the troops, taking their supplies, and sending them away(which means the enemy now has to spend coin to buy new provisions) is a good strategy. I think this is your MC's rationale: Cut the head off the viper before it can slither under a rock to strike again.

I'd say the idea of not killing nobles is very western medieval and somewhat modern. Kings and Emperors of old held no qualms about decimating the nobility of conquered territories, or at least the figureheads so as to replace them with puppet rulers. Then you get the matter of honor, where in some cultures like Japanese and ancient greco/romano leaders/aristocrats would commit suicide in one form or another. (Cleopatra and her asp)

The baron is just a messenger and my MC is a murderhobo. His policy is "if possible, murder every single one of them".

 

[TotallyHuman]

Are you asking if it's moral for your mc to do or if it's legal?
If the first - who cares, he's already a mass murderer (and that they had it coming us not an excuse), if it's the latter - we'll, your mc is basically a terrorist, so who cares?

 

[BenJepheneT]

a rational person will give you a moralistic answer with human answers.

i, however, am no rational motherfucker.

kill the baron then drink beer from his jaw like Nicholas Cage at the end of Drive Angry.

 

[Lloyd]

Technically you arent supposed to execute POWs period. Framing them for warcrimes then executing them and occupying their entire country is okay though.

 

[AKnightWithaKnife]

Sounds like a shity xinna webnovel so ima give yah an answer that fits. Let the baron go. track Him down rape his family then kill him

 

[Arkus86]

Morally and legally, it is wrong to kill POWs, pragmatically it will only make you more enemies if it gets pinned on you, but if your MC is a nutcase murderhobo who does not give a flying fuck, who cares?

As for the existence of the rule itself, it makes sense, as long as the nobles in your world can agree to spare enemy nobles in exchange for ransom and assurance of their own safety, should they fall into enemy hands themselves.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Morally and legally, it is wrong to kill POWs, pragmatically it will only make you more enemies if it gets pinned on you, but if your MC is a nutcase murderhobo who does not give a flying fuck, who cares?

As for the existence of the rule itself, it makes sense, as long as the nobles in your world can agree to spare enemy nobles in exchange for ransom and assurance of their own safety, should they fall into enemy hands themselves.

Yeah well... nobles in my world are dicks. To themselves and even worse to those they deem beneath them. They don't do what they promise and enjoy doublecrossing while hating getting doublecrossed.

Basically they are hypocrites.

 

[AKnightWithaKnife]

Yeah well... nobles in my world are dicks. To themselves and even worse to those they deem beneath them. They don't do what they promise and enjoy doublecrossing while hating getting doublecrossed.

Basically they are hypocrites.

Your world sounds like a xinna novel maybe take a shot a webnovel ?

 

[NotaNuffian]

Your world sounds like a xinna novel maybe take a shot a webnovel ?

No.

Cuz I plan to write for funzy.

Not to get dragged under China's "fuck you writers, Ima make you ma bitch" policy aka forced release, cut pays until less than the sweatshops and praise the fucking nation with contractual bondage so constricting that my balls are blue and there is no safe word other than 天安门事件 and some other BS.

On all the serious note, webnovel is terrible writing platform to join. I might as well join wattpad and BL my work, I would love to get sodomized by Astolfo than signing with that company.

And I can't stand the fact that the country just gun down its inspiring CN writers with BS policies by Tencent. Ffs. They made a bunch of cool live tv shows using the novels as materials and then pull all these shits.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

I got three views for that:

1). Idealist - it is wrong to kill a helpless person, even if it's an enemy. So I'll follow the rules.

2). Realist - they're hunting me, so I guess I'll kill the nobles too.

3). Pragmatic - ransom. Yep, if the money is in my hands, I'll let you live.

My own personal opinion is, I'm an idealist. So yeah, I go by first view, especially since we know of Geneva Convention stuff.

From your MC's personality, he goes by 2nd view.

The world he's in, probably would be the third. So if your MC follows his own view, he would be shunned by the society of the land he's in, based on their culture and beliefs (view).

 

[bulmabriefs144]

Typically, unless the villain repeatedly shows himself to abuse mercy, this is a good way to set the MC up as an antihero. The more quickly they ignore pleas for mercy though, the less sympathetic the audience will be if the roles are reversed. What if the MC needs mercy? What if the villain's lackey extends it? Don't we now feel more sympathetic to the villain than the alleged hero?

Of course, you can always play with that exact concept. Maybe the hero is only vaguely heroic, and we've been told a story centered on the protagonist.

 

[AKnightWithaKnife]

No.

Cuz I plan to write for funzy.

Not to get dragged under China's "fuck you writers, Ima make you ma bitch" policy aka forced release, cut pays until less than the sweatshops and praise the fucking nation with contractual bondage so constricting that my balls are blue and there is no safe word other than 天安门事件 and some other BS.

On all the serious note, webnovel is terrible writing platform to join. I might as well join wattpad and BL my work, I would love to get sodomized by Astolfo than signing with that company.

And I can't stand the fact that the country just gun down its inspiring CN writers with BS policies by Tencent. Ffs. They made a bunch of cool live tv shows using the novels as materials and then pull all these shits.

Tencent wants out now. China’s new law is seriously breaking thei profits

 

[Poleg]

Listen man its petty damn hypocritical to kill some and spare others just cuz of their position. Its onl fair if you murder ALL of them.

Unless they are sexy women with big mommy milkers. Then they can live.

Uhm? Based...?

 

[Derin_Edala]

No one should be executed as POWs, morally. But that doesn't mean that your protagonist can't do it. It's a strong demonstration of his own morals and character.

 

[SakeVision]

I got three views for that:

1). Idealist - it is wrong to kill a helpless person, even if it's an enemy. So I'll follow the rules.

2). Realist - they're hunting me, so I guess I'll kill the nobles too.

3). Pragmatic - ransom. Yep, if the money is in my hands, I'll let you live.

My own personal opinion is, I'm an idealist. So yeah, I go by first view, especially since we know of Geneva Convention stuff.

From your MC's personality, he goes by 2nd view.

The world he's in, probably would be the third. So if your MC follows his own view, he would be shunned by the society of the land he's in, based on their culture and beliefs (view).

Idealist is the option a realist and pragmatic would choose too, if they thought about it.

The goal is to paint yourself into an honorable person with good values, so that no one, not even your enemies would question that you are good and your cause is right.
This would in turn draw people to your side, and shatter the will to fight of your opposition.


On the other hand, mistreating people cause grievances, and their family and friends will come for you with double the fervor. And breaking the rules and regulations will make people, even your allies, think you aren't trustworthy.