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

[FrogReaver]

As Kirk showed, K-M had a hidden optimal solution too: in that case cheat.

The problem with hidden optimal solutions is they appear obvious to the person who thinks of them and unrealistic/impossible/stupid/insane to everyone else who isn't privy to the secret details.

1. Cheating to get past a simulated test (as done in the Kobayushi Maru) isn't a real solution, even though it was an impressive feat that he was able to pull off.

2. I'm not claiming the solution was obvious or that he should have thought of it. In fact I think it was an absolutely terrible potential solution that only someone deadest on lawful stupid would have attempted. I just don't think that's the only solution the DM would have accepted either.

 

[Hussar]

You quoted the general part (good over any concern with law and chaos) without actually going on to the tenants. The tenants, particularly the last one, very much do emphasize courage as part of the oath.

Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.

That says, very clearly, cowards need not apply.

Yeah, I'm not really going to agree that Suicide By Dragon is the heroic answer here. The player had no real choice here. Either die and the man dies anyway or live and the man dies. That's the options. Notions that I must throw away my life in that situation basically means that no matter what, I can never retreat from an encounter. I must always fight to the end.

Sorry, that's a bit too Lawful Stupid for me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because it shows a philosophical difference in the player community right now that may or may not have prevented the paladin player from pursuing that as an option at all.

But that same player community would argue that they could find a way to produce a goal and approach that the DM could determine was possibly successful or had uncertainty to it so that a roll is called for. So I think the objection is moot. Whether the player asks for a check, rolls the insight without consulting the DM first or plays by goal and approach there methods he could have had a chance to determine the dragons true intentions. The important point you keep forgetting is that he didn't try any of that. He just assumed the dragon was truthful and honest and didn't think for a second why it asked him for the man instead of just taking him in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

1. Cheating to get past a simulated test (as done in the Kobayushi Maru) isn't a real solution, even though it was an impressive feat that he was able to pull off.

2. I'm not claiming the solution was obvious or that he should have thought of it. In fact I think it was an absolutely terrible potential solution that only someone deadest on lawful stupid would have attempted. I just don't think that's the only solution the DM would have accepted either.

Regardless though, all the hypotheticals don't really matter. The player thought he had no choice. That choices might have existed are irrelevant. It comes down to the player's perception.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I'm not really going to agree that Suicide By Dragon is the heroic answer here. The player had no real choice here. Either die and the man dies anyway or live and the man dies. That's the options. Notions that I must throw away my life in that situation basically means that no matter what, I can never retreat from an encounter. I must always fight to the end.

Sorry, that's a bit too Lawful Stupid for me.

No one is saying the answer was to fight the dragon, though that would have definitely upheld the tenet. What is being said is the Paladin did nothing when he could at least have tried something.

 

[FrogReaver]

Regardless though, all the hypotheticals don't really matter. The player thought he had no choice. That choices might have existed are irrelevant. It comes down to the player's perception.

A person's flawed perception of a situation doesn't matter.

 

[Mort]

1. Cheating to get past a simulated test (as done in the Kobayushi Maru) isn't a real solution, even though it was an impressive feat that he was able to pull off.

2. I'm not claiming the solution was obvious or that he should have thought of it. In fact I think it was an absolutely terrible potential solution that only someone deadest on lawful stupid would have attempted. I just don't think that's the only solution the DM would have accepted either.

The real solution here, if for the player to look at the DM and say "seriously a Kobayushi Maru scenario? Is there an actual solution here?"

And they cam have a discussion about it.

Unfortunately, past experience has shown that a DM who presents this scenario would also be the type to go shrug "I can't tell you, for you to decide" in a frustratingly unhelpful manor. But at least the player tried.

 

[Hussar]

But that same player community would argue that they could find a way to produce a goal and approach that the DM could determine was possibly successful or had uncertainty to it so that a roll is called for. So I think the objection is moot. Whether the player asks for a check, rolls the insight without consulting the DM first or plays by goal and approach there methods he could have had a chance to determine the dragons true intentions. The important point you keep forgetting is that he didn't try any of that. He just assumed the dragon was truthful and honest and didn't think for a second why it asked him for the man instead of just taking him in the first place.

If I was the player, I would simply assume that the DM was throwing me a bone and not just killing my character. I honestly probably wouldn't think much beyond that.

"Hrm, I have an unbeatable opponent in front of me. It can kill me without really even trying. The DM is giving me an out where I don't have to reroll my character and derail the campaign trying to parachute my new character into the game. OK, I'll go with that."

 

[Nagol]

1. Cheating to get past a simulated test (as done in the Kobayushi Maru) isn't a real solution, even though it was an impressive feat that he was able to pull off.

2. I'm not claiming the solution was obvious or that he should have thought of it. In fact I think it was an absolutely terrible potential solution that only someone deadest on lawful stupid would have attempted. I just don't think that's the only solution the DM would have accepted either.

Kirk got a commendation for it. Sounds like an accepted optimal solution.

2) Maybe, maybe, not. It was a lesson I learned the very hard way several decades ago when I made that mistake a few times in a row as DM. Thinking of a clever solution as the DM with all the info and motivations is very different than dealing if the limited information poor bandwidth data transfer available to the players.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, I'm not really going to agree that Suicide By Dragon is the heroic answer here. The player had no real choice here. Either die and the man dies anyway or live and the man dies. That's the options. Notions that I must throw away my life in that situation basically means that no matter what, I can never retreat from an encounter. I must always fight to the end.

Sorry, that's a bit too Lawful Stupid for me.

The problem here is that the scenario is terrible.

But again, as I've stated many times, I'm not advocating for lawful stupid. I'm just saying that immediately going with surrender the innocent is not the ideal solution.