Giving Shadow Points for...

[Ferretz]

(Warning: some minor spoilers about Darkening of Mirkwood)

I recently ran the first adventure in Darkening of Mirkwood, "The Wizard's Man". In it, while on a hunting expedition out of Rhosgobel, the characters met some warriors from Tyrant Hill.

On their way back to Rhosgobel, the men from Tyrant Hill suddenly attacked the characters. As the Loremaster for the campaign, I had underestimated how dangerous these warriors were, but in the end, the characters prevailed. Two of the warriors tried to turn tail and run.

So, this is what happened. As he tried to back out, one of the men from Tyrant Hill was cut down by our heroes, and the one that did manage to get out of the melee, was shot in the back and killed by the group's archer.

Is killing fleeing enemies and attacking them from behind grounds for Shadow points? Any thoughts?

E.

[Valarian]

I'd put it down to the heat of battle and not necessarily award them any Shadow points. After the battle wears off, you could call for a corruption test as they realise that they've just treated men no better than they would orcs. I'd only award one or two points though. Perhaps one point anyway and another if the test fails (possibly a further one if they roll the Eye).

[Yusei]

Is killing fleeing enemies and attacking them from behind grounds for Shadow points? Any thoughts?

I'd say it is.

[Faire]

So we have got unsuccessful murderers here (I do not know the storyline, but I understand that they attacked characters without justification). If I let them go, they might quite likely murder someone else. That is reason good enough for me to not award SP for killing them. They are not much better than orcs. I know that the Gollum situation turned around in different way but for me it doesn't set the standard - it achieves much more. SP should be awarded for breaking a standard.

Imagine a situation on battlefield - you have broken enemy formation and they begin to flee. Are you required by common morality to let them flee, regroup, and attack again? Hardly so.

[Aeglosdir]

*** DoM SPOILERS ***

Depending on your campaign, Mogdred's men could be Woodmen ordered to track down someone considered (by their superiors) to be a dangerous spy, but the PCs interfered and presumably refused to hand him over. Of course, the LM knows that the 'servants of Tyrant's Hill' are rotten eggs who have had dealings with orcs, but I'm not sure the PCs would know that. There seems to be no reason to assume that these attackers would run off murdering someone else. Mogdred and his men do seem to be redeemable even in Middle-earth.

Edit: Mogdred has a dark past but in the present situation, he has not yet decided which side to support (p 12). For example, if the folk-moot is in his favour, he will turn his back on the Messenger later (in 2953).

If the PCs know about Beran's message, they can expose Mogdred at the folk-moot. Should they? What is the best course of action? Of course, when the PCs have killed off a few of Mogdred's men already, the folk-moot may turn a bit darker. But if so will the players understand why?

[Cawdorthane]

My own view as to whether or not to impose SP for slaughtering fleeing foes is to imagine how would JRR Tolkein have written up the scene, allowing for all of the circumstances that led to the fight in your campaign? Imho the true quality of mercy is a major theme in Tolkein's writing and he usually draws a fairly stark line between necessary and gratuitous violence. How much better would it have been for the PC's to have engaged in an Awe test, admonishing the fleeing brigands for their violence and treachery... Definitely an Advancement Point for a success there me thinks! But yes, the Shaka Zulu response is a legitimate real politik approach to dealing with fleeing enemies (whilst I still love the "What is best in life, Conan?" scene in the first Arnie movie, I doubt that that would have been the Professor's way). If I was LM, a Corruption test would likely have been my minimum response. But each to his/her own I suppose.

cheers
Mark

[Rocmistro]

I have a rather expansive interpretation of what constitutes self-defense, so for me, if they were attacked without provocation, I say the attacker forfeits any claims to mercy.

The only circumstance at that point in which I would say mercy was 'required' of them (The PC's) would be if the enemy threw down their weapons and assumed a state of submission (ie, they sued for mercy). Merely running away is not repentance, sorrow, an admission of guilt or submission to authority/justice/mercy. What's as likely going on in the villain's mind is: "I need to get out of here with my life. When we regroup, we'll figure out what went wrong and then get these suckers!"

A lot of it would depend on their attitudes though. If they were bloodthirsty and looking to hurt someone...SP.

[Aeglosdir]

The villains probably wouldn't have shown any mercy, but the PCs don't have to act like villains.

Once they're running away from you it's no longer self-defense though. It's hard to shoot people in the back without looking to hurt them. Maybe you're simply venting your anger: I'm gonna get the sucker who sprung this ambush on me... he has forfeited his claims to mercy.

[Ferretz]

I gave the characters one Shadow point each for attacking fleeing enemies that were clearly no longer a threat to them.

The way I see it, it is the action, not the intention, that triggers the Shadow point. Of course, the fleeing warriors could take up arms agains innocent travellers again, but that does not excuse shooting them with arrows when they are running away.
Still, this became an interesting moral dilemma. Should they do the brutal and distasteful act of killing these enemies to prevent them from causing trouble later, and gain a Shadow point from it, or let them go, and risk them coming back later?

Sometimes the act is evil, but the intention is good. The rule for Shadow points is a good tool to use for dilemmas such as this, I think.

E.

[Aeglosdir]

I agree, interesting.

Of course the PCs may also be preventing Modgred's men from helping Woodland Hall later (if Mogdred can be swayed that way). In any case, the PCs' actions will likely have consequences, which is good for the game. Even if these particular ambushers won't come back, they did not spring out of thin air but have friends and family that will (say, at the folk-moot). Maybe someone in Mogdred's evil horde recognizes the heroes? Unless, of course, they made sure to kill them all to prevent them from causing trouble later.