Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/40301
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I have a character, a secondary antagonist who is following his sense of duty and pursuing a former asset.

Said asset is injured, tired and cornered, seriously considering making a stand and going out taking as many of the hunters as possible.

The secondary antagonist realizes that the ones they are chasing have been behaving more honourably than they have. Their initial attack was met with tranquilizers so most of their casualties are not casualties.

He also realizes that their actions, while effective and hardly a violation of protocol, just don’t seem right to him.

He suspects that driving the man to desperate acts might result in a desperate act which could be very costly to them in lives.

Secondary antagonist wishes to accomplish his mission with minimal loss of life - his in particular. It strikes this character that the best way to achieve this is not necessarily by shooting everything that moves, but by offering assistance in exchange for surrendering.

The ‘no one needs to die’ speech would be met with scepticism, but this man does not want to act like a villain. He is doing his job and if that means shooting everything, so be it, but it might be easier on all if the asset just tosses out his gun, accepts aid for himself and his partner and lives to fight another day.

There are no villains, just people doing what they think they must.

My question is how best to balance the man’s sense of duty and the requirements of his job with the not so silent voice of his conscience?

He feels angst and has a strong inclination to just shout ‘toss your weapons and we will bring medical assistance.

Original score: 1