[Raellus]

In a morally grey world, it's hard to play by fixed rules. Choices become a lot more situational. For me- and I'm not claiming any moral high ground here- there's a difference between finishing off a wounded prisoner in the heat of battle, when said prisoner still poses something of a threat if left unattended- and summary execution of a prisoner post-combat when he/she no longer poses a threat. As a player and GM, I'm generally OK with the former, but very much opposed to the latter.

Along the same lines, if a prisoner is badly wounded and won't likely survive without major surgery or whatnot (which is seldom available in the field), and the PC's can't provide or facilitate said, I'm OK with mercy killing. If a prisoner will likely survive with first aid that the PCs can provide, then I am not, even if medical supplies are scarce. That said, it also depends on who the prisoner is.

I'm not trying to be flippant about this, but this a quick and dirty matrix I tend to adhere to in RPG's:

To execute, or not to execute?
1. A legal combatant following the laws of war? No.
2. A legal combatant violating the laws of war? Fair game.
3. A marauder that just steals and robs? Probably not.
4. A marauder that steals, robs, and rapes and/or murders. Yeah, probably.
5. A slaver? Fair game, depending on how abusive he/she is towards said slaves (see 4 & 5).
6. An civilian? NO (unless he/she rapes/murders)

I can say all of this because we're talking about a game here. It's relatively easy to make these "tough" choices IG because this is fantasy, not reality, and killing a fictional character doesn't come with the moral or psychological baggage, or any legal ramifications, that killing anyone in real life would. I hope to God that if I ever found myself with the power of life and death over someone else IRL (highly unlikely, but who knows?), I would choose mercy (unless it's in a self-defense context- in that case, I hope I don't chicken out).

-