trinitys_gadget
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2021
- Messages
- 91
- Points
- 18
Well, if you're Henry V, then it's all good as long as you win. But this clash of bushido vs chivalry played out in the Pacific during WW2. For the Japanese, who were wont to kill (and didn't in deference to politics) pows (but they did abuse the hell out of them (see Bataan, wherein General McArthur abandoned his command in the face of the enemy. Were he an admiral, he might have been court-martialed for that.)), the duty of the soldier is to kill or die trying. For the U.S. and European soldiers, their duty was to live as long as they could to kill as many as the could, or lacking that, create as much disruption as possible. Guess which side won, the side that thought it was a soldier's duty to die for their country, and so were wont to kill pows, or the side which thought nobody ever won a war by dying for their country, and so kept pows alive?
But really, the question of POWs is ultimately political. Is your MC leading a mass migration and trying to establish the next Zion or kick off the next Great American Genocide and clear lands to settle? Or is your MC trying to politically dominate a region without displacing its inhabitants? If 1, kill them all by any means possible. If 2, only kill as is politically expedient, but no more than is politically expedient.
But really, the question of POWs is ultimately political. Is your MC leading a mass migration and trying to establish the next Zion or kick off the next Great American Genocide and clear lands to settle? Or is your MC trying to politically dominate a region without displacing its inhabitants? If 1, kill them all by any means possible. If 2, only kill as is politically expedient, but no more than is politically expedient.
