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

[MoonSong]

Well, no. My interpretation does not allow for the paladin to fall if he surrenders the NPC. Being forced under pain of death to do something makes the act against the will of the paladin, and you have to willingly break the oath in order to fall.

I meant the other interpretation, that one of the tenets of the code was self-preservation.

 

[5ekyu]

Only the player has the authority to define their code - - the agreement they made with their god. I don't see anywhere in the rules that I, as DM, am the final arbiter of such, even in the sidebar where it recommends a discussion. I agree, you should always discuss things with your players so that you're on the same page as to understanding.

But, no, if you're going to make paladins adhere to an stringent external code of which you, as DM, are the only arbiter, then you owe more to the player that agrees to this than to any other player at the table. You've constrained their ability to play more than others, and that should only be done with commiserate compensation. So, what is it you do to make paladins better than other classes that don't have you as DM telling them how to roleplay properly?

"Only the player has the authority to define their code - - the agreement they made with their god. I don't see anywhere in the rules that I, as DM, am the final arbiter of such, even in the sidebar where it recommends a discussion. I agree, you should always discuss things with your players so that you're on the same page as to understanding."

In games where I am GM, based on those samesections and te basic rules I see it as NEITHER of those iscorret- te plauer doesntand the player doesnt get to define thecharacter's areeet with thathigher power.

They both have to together. Neither gets to define with the other sittig on thier thumbs.

The NPC higher power can say "nope. Doesnt workfor me. Move on. Maybe try the Fharlanghans two temples down."

And of course, the PC can say much the same.Maye this means the pkayer doest play a paladin (or cleric, or warlock,or some types of druids if it cannot come to an agreement.

***

On a later question, thegeneral notion of "what do they get?" - in games where i GM what one would expect - based on te specifics its usually a support system of some sort. They are almost by defiition part of something bigger and that creates opportunities that can be seen in play as the as campaign progresses. (Obviously, also tendsto carry other baggage too...)

 

[MoonSong]

A paladin fit in that campaign just fine, thanks! She did not have "I must strive to protect the innocents at whatever risk to myself and my companions!" attitude. More like a "This is wrong. This must be stopped. We shall stop it, obviously. What will it take to accomplish that? How can we start and whom can we save first?"

Well, that isn't exactly the ethos I go for either. I mean, I go with "I try to protect all of the innocents I can regardless of personal risk" I make clear to the party that they don't have to follow me into oblivion. But I try to save everyone

 

[Maxperson]

I meant the other interpretation, that one of the tenets of the code was self-preservation.

Not being able to save the world doesn't matter. He just needs to be alive(preserving his light) so that he can make the good faith(see what I did there ) effort to save the world. If he fails to save the world through no fault of his own, that's not a willful failure. He won't fall for failing to save everyone.

 

[Nagol]

Well, that isn't exactly the ethos I go for either. I mean, I go with "I try to protect all of the innocents I can regardless of personal risk" I make clear to the party that they don't have to follow me into oblivion. But I try to save everyone

Yeah, but social groups being what they are, people tend to follow cf. Leeroy Jenkins. "Bob is charging the demons! What do the rest of you do? Sigh, I guess we'll go in! We shouldn't split the group. <next round> Run away! Run... argh! Tell me someone got away?! Yeah CaroI stayed back so it isn't a TPK." Maybe I'll try that next time. So do we raise Bob? Nah. He died doing what he loved and I'm sure he is in heaven now. No reason to inflict this world on him again."

 

[Hussar]

I expect paladins to remain brave and not to sell the innocent for their own life

I thing this is what it boils down to.

Some DM's have decided, without any consultation with the players, and without actually looking at the PHB to see what the different paladin oaths are, that X must always be true.

It's not.

Never minding that there are numerous paladin oaths where it wouldn't even be problematic for the paladin to sell an innocent for their own life, in THIS specific case, doing so, would directly violate their oath.

 

[Hussar]

At the end of the day, and I cannot believe I'M saying this, @Maxperson has the right of it.

The player did not willingly violate his oath. He was forced into it. Thus, there is no need for more serious consequences. Funnily enough, this notion of willingly violating the oath appears in virtually every edition of D&D, but, because so many DM's conveniently forgot that part that made playing paladins so difficult.

 

[Maxperson]

At the end of the day, and I cannot believe I'M saying this, @Maxperson has the right of it.

The player did not willingly violate his oath. He was forced into it. Thus, there is no need for more serious consequences. Funnily enough, this notion of willingly violating the oath appears in virtually every edition of D&D, but, because so many DM's conveniently forgot that part that made playing paladins so difficult.

It's almost as if the designers didn't want players screwed by being placed in circumstances like this one.

 

[MoonSong]

At the end of the day, and I cannot believe I'M saying this, @Maxperson has the right of it.

The player did not willingly violate his oath. He was forced into it. Thus, there is no need for more serious consequences. Funnily enough, this notion of willingly violating the oath appears in virtually every edition of D&D, but, because so many DM's conveniently forgot that part that made playing paladins so difficult.

It's almost as if the designers didn't want players screwed by being placed in circumstances like this one.

If I put my rules lawyer attorney hat...
Willingly refers to the paladin being in control of her own body and mind, because there's stuff like mind control magic, possession, body puppetry, or the unconscious, dying, dead, petrified, paralyzed and frozen statuses. Those would constitute the not willing loophole -and the truly unfair circumstance, imagine if the DM could drop a control spell and force you to fall that way-. If the paladin was conscious and in control of her own acts when she violated the code, then the paladin willingly violated the oath. It doesn't matter if it was under pressure/under a death threat.

 

[Maxperson]

If I put my rules lawyer attorney hat...
Willingly refers to the paladin being in control of her own body and mind, because there's stuff like mind control magic, possession, body puppetry, or the unconscious, dying, dead, petrified, paralyzed and frozen statuses. Those would constitute the not willing loophole -and the truly unfair circumstance, imagine if the DM could drop a control spell and force you to fall that way-. If the paladin was conscious and in control of her own acts when she violated the code, then the paladin willingly violated the oath. It doesn't matter if it was under pressure/under a death threat.

I don't think that's what they meant, or they would just have said not under mind controlling effects. Forced to engage in the act through coercion is enough to qualify for what they meant in my opinion.

I also wouldn't call it a loophole.