D&D 5E Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next?

[Hussar]

So the Oath of the Ancients is protect the light as best you can but if push comes to shove save your own behind first?

First? Really? How about last. There is no push or shove here. There's just pointlessly die accomplishing nothing. See, that's the part that I can't figure out. Why would an oath of any kind of paladin force the paladin to pointlessly throw away his or her life (avoiding the "suicide" word because, apparently, that's just going to cause more pedantic nonsense)? How would that not result in paladins going extinct in a very big hurry? All a bad guy has to do is take a couple of hostages and then demand that every paladin around step up to the chopping block. After all, death before dishonor right? If you resist, I'll kill the hostage. So, step on up, put your head down on the block and let this big strapping lad chop off your head. It's what your Oath demands.

Yeah, paladins are actually that stupid.

Not a lot of wars would be won with soldiers who had this attitude. I find it striking that people expect less from a fictional Paladin than armies traditionally expected from common soldiers IRL.

No war has EVER been won with the notion of throwing your life away for no result. In fact, the most egregious, horrific actions in wars have been the result of blinding stupidity forcing men into situations where they get themselves killed for no result. Charge of the Light Brigade, Hamburger Hill, kamikaze pilots (so hopped up on meth that they wouldn't recognize their own grandmothers, the vast majority of which splatted into the ocean without effect), Blackhawk Down, on and on and on.

No, wars are never won through blind stupidity.

 

[Hussar]

The implied reason is that the paladin's own mission was far more important...without the paladin to save the world, everyone (including the NPC) is doomed. "You don't know this about me but I'm kind of a big deal."

It doesn't really hold water unless he is (or believes he is) the only hero that exists, or will ever exist, in the world. But it seems to be a popular defense.

IT was never given as an option. The only two options that were presented were, kill the man or kill them both. Remember, this is the BEST result the paladin could get. This was the best offer he could get after negotiating.

And, again, it's trusting that the dragon would keep its word. Dragon eats paladin, decides to eat man for dessert. Is the paladin still guilty of violating his Oath? After all, now he has deliberately killed himself (arguably a willing violation of an Oath of Ancients) for nothing. Or, are we simply back to arguing over price? "I'll give you 15 HP worth of my body, and we walk away?"

 

[Yardiff]

So let's say you were the DM for this scenario. You discuss it with the player after the game. They tell you

​

"I gave it my best shot. I saw no way of surviving the encounter with the dragon. I believed any more discussion would lead to my death in addition to the death of the NPC. As much as I would have liked to save the NPC, I didn't see any alternative. My mission to save the world is more important."​

You're honestly saying you would tell them that they committed an egregiously evil act and their options are to write up a new character or become an oathbreaker?

I'm not going to answer in the way to want. I'll tell you want I believe the player did and this I just my thinking. The player felt that he had won the encounter when he had rolled a really good persuasion but when the GM continued the encounter the player felt cheated of his win so punted.

 

[Lord of Nessus]

The implied reason is that the paladin's own mission was far more important...without the paladin to save the world, everyone (including the NPC) is doomed. "You don't know this about me but I'm kind of a big deal."

It doesn't really hold water unless he is (or believes he is) the only hero that exists, or will ever exist, in the world. But it seems to be a popular defense.

It absolutely DOES hold water - you are perfectly aware of the many, many game scenarios, including official ones, where the PC(s) are clearly described as being the only ones available or in a position to save the world, and where (in official adventures) it is clearly stated that if the PCs fail, the world does indeed end. The Paladin believed he was in such a situation, that his own survival was absolutely necessary to prevent the world's end, and therefore he COULD NOT simply think about one person's well-being or his personal honor, because he had an obligation to the other people of the world not to let them all die. In a scenario where the PC was not urgently needed elsewhere, and he could afford the luxury of dying in the name of his code (or simply because he cared about the man he was trying to protect), sure, the Paladin is free to risk sacrificing his own life in a useless gesture to try to save the man. But here the Paladin has MUCH greater obligations to MANY more people, and will STILL LOSE THE MAN if he fails to save the world (which he obviously cannot try to do if he is dead from trying to fight a dragon.)

If you are an expert at defusing nuclear bombs, and you are on a very tight time limit to prevent a bomb from going off and at the same time a child's life is in danger from some other source, you may feel sick in your heart about it but you focus on the bomb, not the kid because if the bomb blows the kid dies anyway. Sometimes there is no scenario where everybody lives, and in that case you have to save the most people you can. That's doesn't make you evil or heartless. Good people - real or fictional - forced to make such decisions should be pitied and treated with compassion, not berated for failing to do the impossible.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And I don't think anyone has yet discussed why the paladin didn't offer himself to the dragon in exchange for the life of the PC.

The paladin was carrying the NPC. As such, it is entirely possible that the NPC was badly injured and could not have survived on his own.

 

[Oofta]

The paladin was carrying the NPC. As such, it is entirely possible that the NPC was badly injured and could not have survived on his own.

That was my assumption as well.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not going to answer in the way to want. I'll tell you want I believe the player did and this I just my thinking. The player felt that he had won the encounter when he had rolled a really good persuasion but when the GM continued the encounter the player felt cheated of his win so punted.

Ok, let's run with that.

Is the DM then justified in ruining the player's character because the player didn't want to play out the DM's idea?

 

[CleverNickName]

It absolutely DOES hold water - you are perfectly aware of the many...

I think I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation; it's getting a little too tense in here.

I know the call I would have made at my table. It will differ from others here, and I'm okay with that.

 

[5ekyu]

Absolutely.

Part of the issue from my perspective is there is a tendency to treat Player Characters as if they were an island. Paladins and Clerics do not get the benefit of their fictional positioning, but are expected to uphold the fictional demands of their place in the divine hierarchy.

A Paladin worthy of the name is a favored scion of a god. They have divine authority and a place in the hegemony of their faith. Even if they are not personally a threat to the dragon that fictional positioning should at least be considered and addressed.

I agree if they are treated in the fiction like fighters with magic powers changing tune when they act like fighters with magic powers is acting in bad faith.

One of the things I try to present in the pre-game discussion and in-play are the roles of the Ffaith's, and specifically any faiths of PCs. They are not " islands" and for better worse come with ties that cut both ways.

I make no bones about it, if you want more free-wheeling PCs without ties, choose the other classes. Clerics, Paladino, warlocks and yo lesser extent druids and some sub-classes or backgrounds bring ties with them.

 

[Yardiff]

Ok, let's run with that.

Is the DM then justified in ruining the player's character because the player didn't want to play out the DM's idea?

Your assuming that the GM would 'ruin' the character and not just impose a minor 'need to say some hail marry's'. The OP asked others opinions so he could make the best decision not just impose the absolute worst penalty as it seem you believe he would.