Giving Shadow Points for...

[Angelalex242]

True enough, but it's still a good place to start. "If the Geneva Convention doesn't approve, you're getting Shadow Points. If it does approve, we'll work it out case by case."

[Rich H]

I shy away from skewering the enemies after (or during) a fight as an LM by having the standard adversary die at zero Endurance. If the PCs are trying to subdue their opponents (ie, openly stating that they want them alive) or if there's some kind of reason in the plot for them being alive after the fight then I use the RAW but otherwise I find the above avoids these kinds of issues nicely; and I throw enough Shadow around in my game without the need for awarding it through these kind of actions.

[Deadmanwalking]

I shy away from skewering the enemies after (or during) a fight as an LM by having the standard adversary die at zero Endurance. If the PCs are trying to subdue their opponents (ie, openly stating that they want them alive) or if there's some kind of reason in the plot for them being alive after the fight then I use the RAW but otherwise I find the above avoids these kinds of issues nicely; and I throw enough Shadow around in my game without the need for awarding it through these kind of actions.

Yeah, this is definitely a good call from the perspective of avoiding those sorts of things.

Also, this way of handling it is probably more realistic, after all, most adversaries go down due to Endurance loss...but unconsciousness is not the most common result of being stabbed or shot repeatedly. So...frankly, ruling that all enemies are only unconscious (rather than dead) at 0 Endurance is rather immersion-breaking (especially if you have them heal as quickly as PCs from Endurance loss). The official way also means that, vs. lightly armored adversaries, a blow from a spear will kill almost three times as often as one from a great axe. Which is, again, rather immersion breaking.

[Stormcrow]

most adversaries go down due to Endurance loss...but unconsciousness is not the most common result of being stabbed or shot repeatedly.

Being seriously stabbed or shot causes a Wound. Being grazed or taking the shock of impact only reduces Endurance. Unconsciousness IS a reasonable interpretation of adversaries going to 0 Endurance. They may not have taken a serious wound, but they're overcome. They've been knocked senseless one way or another.

[Glorelendil]

I don't believe TOR is meant to be an accurate simulation of medieval combat. Quite the opposite: it tries to simplify combat rules to facilitate storytelling.

I'm with Rich, and I categorize this with counting arrows: assume the simplest case, unless there is a compelling narrative reason to do otherwise. Which, in my opinion, is that enemies are dead when the rules say they are eliminated from the fight. (And that heroes have arrows.)

The official way also means that, vs. lightly armored adversaries, a blow from a spear will kill almost three times as often as one from a great axe. Which is, again, rather immersion breaking.

Only if you let it. And if my players ever lined up 100 captives and did a statistical analysis of mortality rates of various weapon types, they'd succumb to shadow madness long before they compiled any meaningful data.

[zedturtle]

I go Rich's way for the servants of the Shadow (and other things, like Spiders) but allow (evil/Evil) Men to be unconscious instead. I figure heroes don't fight Men every day and would be more likely to pull their blows, in hopes of saving the Men instead of killing them.

[Deadmanwalking]

most adversaries go down due to Endurance loss...but unconsciousness is not the most common result of being stabbed or shot repeatedly.

Being seriously stabbed or shot causes a Wound. Being grazed or taking the shock of impact only reduces Endurance. Unconsciousness IS a reasonable interpretation of adversaries going to 0 Endurance. They may not have taken a serious wound, but they're overcome. They've been knocked senseless one way or another.

But that doesn't change the basic point. 'Being overcome' in a non-lethal way is simply not, from a realism perspective, the most likely result of being attacked with a sword repeatedly by someone skilled in their use.

I don't believe TOR is meant to be an accurate simulation of medieval combat. Quite the opposite: it tries to simplify combat rules to facilitate storytelling.

Well, sure. I'm not arguing that realism should be the primary concern here, just noting that, in addition to being narratively useful, the idea that most foes die when you get them to 0 Endurance is also a bit more realistic, which is a nice side benefit.

Also, just from a narrative point of view, how many Orcs in LotR got knocked out and had to be dealt with afterward? Because I remember no such instances...

I'm with Rich, and I categorize this with counting arrows: assume the simplest case, unless there is a compelling narrative reason to do otherwise. Which, in my opinion, is that enemies are dead when the rules say they are eliminated from the fight. (And that heroes have arrows.)

Oh, agreed entirely. I'm just throwing out additional reasons this is a good idea.

The official way also means that, vs. lightly armored adversaries, a blow from a spear will kill almost three times as often as one from a great axe. Which is, again, rather immersion breaking.

Only if you let it. And if my players ever lined up 100 captives and did a statistical analysis of mortality rates of various weapon types, they'd succumb to shadow madness long before they compiled any meaningful data.

Well, true to some degree, but speaking as someone who's playing an axe user...I've rolled a whole one Pierce in the entire campaign thus far (way below average, but hey, it's true), but with a Grievous Axe and solid damage, taken out a whole bunch of enemies. If that Pierce was the only time I'd ever killed anything (it's not, our GM generally has things die at 0 Endurance)...my rate of merely knocking people out while chopping at them with an axe would be well over 95% and I'd definitely have noticed that by now, y'know? Even if you get the average 1/12 of actions, that's still more than a 90% rate of knockouts (as opposed to deaths), to the spear-user's 75%. That's a noticeable difference in play.

I go Rich's way for the servants of the Shadow (and other things, like Spiders) but allow (evil/Evil) Men to be unconscious instead. I figure heroes don't fight Men every day and would be more likely to pull their blows, in hopes of saving the Men instead of killing them.

This is a valid way to go, and a good way to make battles vs. men legitimately and profoundly morally different from those with creatures of Shadow.

[Glorelendil]

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

[Deadmanwalking]

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

I got that, just clarifying my own point.

[Amargen]

Reminds me of Helm's Deep, and the Dunlending's amazement that the Rohirrim didn't murder them. Men are easily deluded in Middle Earth, and slaying them for their lack of will and foresight would be evil.

and, players may find that sparing a human enemy had dividends later.