If you've read my comments on Question 114, you might have an inkling about what I'm going to say here.
I've explained at some length why I believe a forename should have been required for Question 114. But I have to confess I am at a loss to know why a forename was required for Question 116. I can see no possibility of this character being confused with any other.
The only possible justification I can think of is that out of the context of the book (or film, etc.) a fictional character (as opposed to a real life person) is less likely to be known by their surname only. But the counter–argument to this is that in the book itself (The Da Vinci Code – I don't have a copy of Origin to hand), this particular character is almost invariably referred to by his surname only.
And in any case, if the forename is required this should be stated as part of the question, and not as part of the answer. If the first team had, in all innocence, answered with the surname only, this would have put the question master in an even worse predicament than the one I described in my previous comments; according to the question setter he would not have been allowed to accept the answer, but IMHO this would have been completely unfair.
I suspect the question setter would argue that the question master could give the team a second chance by asking for the forename. But this opens up another can of worms; if they'd given the wrong one and it were passed over, this would give a big steer to the second team (who might not have known the surname if the first team hadn't given it). This is exactly why we allow surnames only, unless there's a good reason for insisting on a forename.
I would like to think that if this had happened (i.e. if the first team had answered with surname only), the second team would have volunteered to allow them the points.
© Macclesfield Quiz League 2018