Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40307
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40307
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 **There is no conflict between duty and conscience**

The man's duty is to neutralize the asset, with minimal loss of life and resources on his side. He would be doing his duty if he killed the asset or if he captured the asset.

You're saying he prefers at this point to capture the asset. This is not counter to doing his duty. In fact, there are many tactical advantages to it.

- He removes the risk that the asset will do a suicide run and take out more of his soldiers.

- He is more likely to come out of this alive and well himself.

- He makes it possible for the asset to be questioned, which may prove useful.

- He makes it easier for his side to discover who caused the asset to turn and how.

- If the asset stole documents or materials, they are more likely to be recovered (less damage if they're on the asset's person and a possible route to find them if they are hidden).

The fact that the man would rather see his former ally alive is just a bonus feature.

Now, why would the asset agree to surrender? Because he is not a fool. All those reasons above are ones he can see as clearly as your reader. Maybe it's a trick to get him out in the open for a clean shot, maybe not. If he refuses to surrender, he (and his partner) will die. If he agrees to surrender, he has a good chance at living. Most people would take the chance at life, especially when it's also someone else's life.

As for the offer of medical assistance, that would be sincere. Why? Because the asset is of a lot more use to the man's allies alive. The man knows this. The asset knows this. This will influence his decision.

Original score: 3