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

[JacktheRabbit]

During our session tonight, the party's paladin got in trouble. He was carrying an injured NPC to safety. Unfortunately, an adult dragon cornered him.
"Give me that man, and you can live. I hunger" it said. I had hoped he would stare it down with a bit of god-fuelled determination.

Just a minor quibble here. You are the DM, I assume he started at 1st level or so and has played up to 7th level. At this point you should have some idea how the player will act in most situations and the player should have some idea of how you play as DM.

You assumed he would stand tall and back down a hungry dragon.

He assumed you would have the dragon attack and eat him.


So either your campaign does not have much roleplay in it (ie mostly straight up combat) so neither of you really knew what the other was expecting here or, at least one of you completely misread the other based on the campaign up to this point.

Also, in game question. Why did the dragon want the man? Did he know the player was a paladin and he was trying to mess with him? Was the man quite fat and tasty looking? What caused this situation?

Final point, the Paladin did NOT commit murder. The dragon committed murder. All the Paladin did, in his players eyes, was chose to NOT commit suicide.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

If he's LG, part of his power comes from his deity. If the dragon sews the seeds of cowardice, and it spreads where everyone knows what he did, including his god - the god withholds his spells until he redeems himself. There is not a deity around that's going to spare their power just to have it used by someone who does not promote their ideals. That is the point of a paladin.

From a story standpoint it could be fun too. Don't let the player know it's happening. He tries to use lay on hands, and it fizzles. He feels the warmth of his god leaving him. He has dreams about being forsaken. Maybe even tempted by an alternate god, or the dragon himself promising something better?

After collecting myself, I will (hopefully more coherently) say that what you propose by making that one player the butt of the joke and getting the other players to laugh and throw tomatoes ranks among the top 5 most dickish things that the DM could possibly do in this situation.

 

[Mort]

If he's LG, part of his power comes from his deity. If the dragon sews the seeds of cowardice, and it spreads where everyone knows what he did, including his god - the god withholds his spells until he redeems himself. There is not a deity around that's going to spare their power just to have it used by someone who does not promote their ideals. That is the point of a paladin.

From a story standpoint it could be fun too. Don't let the player know it's happening. He tries to use lay on hands, and it fizzles. He feels the warmth of his god leaving him. He has dreams about being forsaken. Maybe even tempted by an alternate god, or the dragon himself promising something better?

So compound the initial lack of communication where the DM expected the player to read his mind by adding further lack of communication so the DM can have "fun" by tormenting the character and the player?

Sorry, but that's the kind of "fun" that leads to hurt feelings and fractured groups.

If the DM wants to impose consequences he needs to man up and say why.

Having "fun" at the expense of a player or character is the same as laughing at someone as opposed to with them - it's not a good idea.

 

[5ekyu]

But die fighting is the way here. There's this idea of living to fight other day, or because "The fate of the world is more important". But I counter with "How can I save the world if I can't save this one life?" If I am playing a paladin, I have to be heroic to the bitter end, no question.

Now, If I was put in this kind of no win scenario by the DM, I wouldn't waste time telling the DM I am owed something nice for the loss of the character, as the loss was no fault of my own. Specially as we both understand that giving up the innocent was never on the table.


Being a Paladin requires you being willing to throw your life for the cause. There's no surrender, nor retreat while innocent lives are on the line.

"But die fighting is the way here. There's this idea of living to fight other day, or because "The fate of the world is more important". But I counter with "How can I save the world if I can't save this one life?" If I am playing a paladin, I have to be heroic to the bitter end, no question."

I can certainly agree that that might be the case when you run a paladin.

For me, it's about the charscter, his oath and the tenets of his beliefs.

I know of no belief setup that a divine presented in 5e or most any edition where literally saving everyone, no failures, ever, is the measure.

How did this guy survive then with paladin in good standing the first time bad guys attacked a town and someone died? He couldn't save everyone in town so "he couldn't save" one life then too.

Letting the chance the world dies go up because you cannot accept even one defeat is self-indulgent hubris, not heroism.

But, more to the point, where was this judgemental quick to punish divine on the moments before this situation? Where was his inspiration? His guidance? His lighting the way to see this true path?

Two die or one dies - last I checked it was the "less death" option that's generally viewed as good.

 

[Hussar]

I mean that is one way out of many to look at it. You are choosing to see what you want to see,because it's easy. There are just as many ways he could have saved the man as there are ways they both would have died.

Really? Name 2. Name 2 ways that could reasonably be expected to work when a 7th level paladin is faced with an adult (CR13+) dragon.

snip]

For instance I take it in your game the Paladin wouldn't have faced any repercussions?
What if the person with him had been a women? A Child?
What if it demanded HE kill the man instead?
Isn't it semantics who does the actual killing? Same life ended at the same time. Why does weapon or who did it make a difference?

What if it was a dozen children? The Paladin could perhaps save millions by saving the world ...he is going to let them all die to save 12 children?

I already posted twice what my ruling would be here. Ask the player. Does the player think he violated the oath? Why or why not. Use the player's definition of the Oath in the future to build scenarios.

Not really going to play whataboutits. This issue is complicated enough without heading down that rabbit hole.

it's food for thought anyway.

My issue with Paladins in 5E is the lack of a strict moral code. I agree it's confusing.

This LG Paladin has this strict code..this Chaotic God one has this ethos. This N.G. one follows these guidelines and this one does not.

I do like Paladins but it's just too much work for one class. Clerics and Warlocks are bad enough but the friggin Paladin is a headache!

There is a very, VERY good reason why Paladins in 5e lack a strict moral code. This thread and some of the responses in it are exemplary examples of that reason.

 

[MoonSong]

Meh, to me, choosing to live IS the tough decision.

Player chooses to fight and character dies. Character comes up before the pearly gates and his diety of choice:

Gawd: So, you died.
Paladin: Yes, it was a glorious death. I died as a shining beacon of hope.
Gawd: So, the man escaped?
Paladin: No. He died immediately.
Gawd: So, you took the gawd given gifts you had, abandoned your quest to save to world, and threw them away on a pointless gesture that achieved nothing other than to assuage your own ego? We certainly never told you death before dishonor.
Paladin: But, but, it was the moral thing to do!
Gawd: Pointlessly killing yourself in a meaningless gesture was the moral thing to do? When you knew that your gesture could achieve nothing? THAT was the moral thing to do?
Paladin: But, but, I have it on good authority that that was the moral thing to do and that the true evil in the world is when we don't oppose evil.
Gawd: Well, sorta. Yes, oppose evil is good. Pointlessly killing yourself to achieve nothing is just pointless and stupid.

I don't support the notion that paladins have to make pointless and stupid gestures just to satisfy some DM's sense of morality. Makes me REALLY glad for the group I have.

"Gawd: So, you died.
Paladin: Yes, it was a glorious death. I died as a shining beacon of hope.
Gawd: So, the man escaped?
Paladin: No. He died immediately.
Gawd: So, you took the gawd given gifts you had, abandoned your quest to save to world, and threw them away on a pointless gesture that achieved nothing other than to assuage your own ego? We certainly never told you death before dishonor."

Paladin: If I couldn't prevent a dragon from killing an innocent, how exactly was I to save the world from an even bigger menace? And you tell me about ego? Ego would be to value my own life over the others! And what do you know about it? you didn't do anything! If you reduce life to a cold calculation I don't see how you can call yourself a good deity. I regret nothing, except trusting an uncaring gawd like you. Now if excuse me, there's a spot in the wall with my name on it...

"But die fighting is the way here. There's this idea of living to fight other day, or because "The fate of the world is more important". But I counter with "How can I save the world if I can't save this one life?" If I am playing a paladin, I have to be heroic to the bitter end, no question."

I can certainly agree that that might be the case when you run a paladin.

For me, it's about the charscter, his oath and the tenets of his beliefs.

I know of no belief setup that a divine presented in 5e or most any edition where literally saving everyone, no failures, ever, is the measure.

How did this guy survive then with paladin in good standing the first time bad guys attacked a town and someone died? He couldn't save everyone in town so "he couldn't save" one life then too.

Letting the chance the world dies go up because you cannot accept even one defeat is self-indulgent hubris, not heroism.

But, more to the point, where was this judgemental quick to punish divine on the moments before this situation? Where was his inspiration? His guidance? His lighting the way to see this true path?

Two die or one dies - last I checked it was the "less death" option that's generally viewed as good.

IMO, If you are not trying to be heroic, then you are a paladin in name only. Obviously, you cannot save everyone, but you still have to try, especially if they are under your direct protection. It is ok to fail because you got defeated, because you cant be everywhere or because you got outmaneuvered. It is not ok to outright sell the innocent you are protecting to save your own fleece.

 

[5ekyu]

"Gawd: So, you died.
Paladin: Yes, it was a glorious death. I died as a shining beacon of hope.
Gawd: So, the man escaped?
Paladin: No. He died immediately.
Gawd: So, you took the gawd given gifts you had, abandoned your quest to save to world, and threw them away on a pointless gesture that achieved nothing other than to assuage your own ego? We certainly never told you death before dishonor."

Paladin: If I couldn't prevent a dragon from killing an innocent, how exactly was I to save the world from an even bigger menace? And you tell me about ego? Ego would be to value my own life over the others! And what do you know about it? you didn't do anything! If you reduce life to a cold calculation I don't see how you can call yourself a good deity. I regret nothing, except trusting an uncaring gawd like you. Now if excuse me, there's a spot in the wall with my name on it...


IMO, If you are not trying to be heroic, then you are a paladin in name only. Obviously, you cannot save everyone, but you still have to try, especially if they are under your direct protection. It is ok to fail because you got defeated, because you cant be everywhere or because you got outmaneuvered. It is not ok to outright sell the innocent you are protecting to save your own fleece.

Fortunately, this paladin did try to be heroic, just not suicidally so when that effort failed.

Heroic and suicidal are not synonyms.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the general case it appears we are all in closer agreement than it would seem. On both the moral issue and the playstyle issue.

The points of disagreement are more about which cases this specific dragon encounter example falls under. It seems to me that there are a lot of details that could easily move it from one realm to the other.

For example, if the scenario isn't viewed as a no win scenario then just immediately acquiescing to the dragons request is very problematic. However if it is a no-win scenario where the only choices are either acquiesce to the request or you both die then the paladin chose the moral action.

With that said, there's one principle that hasn't really been discussed much in relation to the moral / not moral question. Moral decisions are always based on impartial knowledge. So the most important part of determining the morality of the paladins action isn't to look at it from the knowledge we have of the whole situation. Instead it's to look at the knowledge he had of the situation and what actions he could have taken to get more knowledge of the situation.

So in our example, the paladin is confronted with a dragon much to strong for him to fight and survive. The dragon gives him a verbal choice, "i'll kill you both unless you give me the NPC." At this point in the scene how can the paladin know that it's a no-win scenario? Is there any reasonable actions a person could do in this scenario to attempt to validate that it's a no-win scenario. Is it okay to give the NPC to the Dragon without attempting to validate it's a no win scenario first?

That to me is ultimate root cause of the paladins moral failure in this example, no attempt to validate that his situation really was a no win scenario before he gave the NPC to the dragon. It's also important to note that this moral failure exists whether it actually was a no win scenario or not and regardless of whether the paladin or his player believed it was a no-win scenario.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There do seem to be a lot of people who haven't grasped that in 5e paladins are no longer required to be lawful stupid...

The OP, who appears to have run away themselves, has said nothing to indicate the paladin had an oath that required them to "defend the weak" or was of lawful good alignment. Unless both of these are true, the whole thread is a non-issue.

 

[5ekyu]

There do seem to be a lot of people who haven't grasped that in 5e paladins are no longer required to be lawful stupid...

The OP, who appears to have run away themselves, has said nothing to indicate the paladin had an oath that required them to "defend the weak" or was of lawful good alignment. Unless both of these are true, the whole thread is a non-issue.

iirc somewhere later on the Op may have stated it was an oath of the ancients paladin and took the beacon of hope as the key bits... but i may be mistaken.