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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

You should leave the hat off. Duress is an affirmative defense.

 

[happyhermit]

First, it was not a deal it was a coercive demand. "Do this" is not a deal even if you accede, when it accompanied by explicit or implicit "or else".

I don't think my use of the language was incorrect, actually. "Deal" means a lot of things and certainly seems to encompass this as per google;

1. an agreement entered into by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, especially in a business or political context.

Dragon offers deal "Give me that man and you can live." Dragon gets man, Paladin gets to live, mutually beneficial. Deals don't need to be fair to be deals and you can be coerced into accepting a deal.

...
I don't think there is any argument that the player demonstrated, at best, unskilled play. ...

Yeah, I don't think it's "skill" because that could be a bit insulting. I often play with completely new-to-ttrpg players and IME few if any would say "OK". There could be many reasons this happened that way but I doubt it is lack of skill on the player's part.

I don't think that scenario bears much resemblance to the one in the OP. The one I posted, quoted below, is far more analogous in my opinion.

And I don't think yours is closer in many ways (shocking huh ). How "soon" is this nuclear bomb going to go off and how many other "few" people could prevent it. Not to mention the fact that the officer in question hasn't been granted divine magical abilities from swearing to serve and protect. All that aside, even in your example "Ok." and just moving on would be questionable to say the least. Just let some random tank go about their business in your city, no questions asked, because you are part of a somewhat small group of people that hope to save the world in the mid-near future.

Personally, I could easily see that "Ok" being said through gritted teeth and out of character, because the player is furious with the DM for (at least from the player's perspective) abusing their power and putting them in a no-win scenario that wrecks the character (death or dishonor). Admittedly, that's pure supposition. The point is, we don't know the context. Therefore, I choose to focus on the facts we do know.

I am not making a lot of assumptions about what actually happened, because unless it was recorded that's unlikely to be verified. My point was about the paladin saying "Ok" or something very similar, I cannot say whether or not it happened in this case.

Ooh, I like it, but you left something out. Let's add it back in and see if it looks differently:

"The man has also just discovered the cure for cancer and he and his wife are on the way to deliver the research to the world. If they both die, the research dies with them. Cancer may still be cured by someone else, but this cure will be lost."

Now, does that change anything at all? Is one life worth the cure for cancer?

First of all I think you are doing more than "adding it back in". The OP said "and continue on the world-saving adventure the party are part way through" that sounds to me like the doctor is on their way to discovering the cure to cancer, not walking to a press conference with a solution in-hand. If they added more details later I missed it. Certainty and immediacy can make a lot of difference, don't you agree? For example; the world is going to literally blow up in 6 seconds, the paladin is a few steps away from a disarm button and nobody else is anywhere near it. Much more excusable than if he is one of a pool of people who might save the world at some point in the future.

Look, this was essentially a version of the trolley problem. There's not a right moral answer. It's all bad.

Sure, but morality is often about "less bad". For me there is a "right" answer to the trolley problem, but I don't (usually) argue that other's are wrong.

I'd, perhaps, encourage the player to consider the action and what it means to their character -- ie, what the player wants to do about it, but the moment I, as DM, start deciding what should happen between this player and their character, I'm stepping across the line and playing their character for them. Now, I can have the world react, but altering the character is bad mojo. I can apply external NPC pressure, but I should not be in the business of changing anything on the PC's character sheet. This holds even outside needing to correct for the bad scenario presented.

Mostly agree, a GM (in D&D at least, not the case in all games) shouldn't be telling players how to play their character. There is certainly stuff on the character sheet that the GM can clearly effect through the fictional world though; Height, weight, spells, inventory, pretty much everything including alignment. It should be (IMO) because of in-fiction reasons, and it shouldn't tell the PC how to play their character, at all. They should be free to have their character react to what happens in-fiction however they think their character might.

A player's paladin should only fall if the player decides it should fall. The worst I can do (and, honestly, it's pretty bad) is have the world treat them appropriate to their actions. This archaic idea of what a paladin should be or that paladin actually have DM enforceable roleplaying levers is best left in older editions or in your table rules.

Which is fine if you are upfront about it. Personally, I can handle this sort of thing in other games (not my favorite to say the least) but when it gets pulled in D&D I just want to get up and leave. Luckily only seen it a few times. To be clear, I am talking about what someone(s) said early about having the player decide if the oath was broken, that sort of thing. Not my job as a player and it just sucks the life out of the fictional world if the GM is making me determine consequences for my PC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think my use of the language was incorrect, actually. "Deal" means a lot of things and certainly seems to encompass this as per google;


Dragon offers deal "Give me that man and you can live." Dragon gets man, Paladin gets to live, mutually beneficial. Deals don't need to be fair to be deals and you can be coerced into accepting a deal.



Yeah, I don't think it's "skill" because that could be a bit insulting. I often play with completely new-to-ttrpg players and IME few if any would say "OK". There could be many reasons this happened that way but I doubt it is lack of skill on the player's part.

I also don't think it's skill. I think it's how the DM has trained their table -- it has nothing to do with newness or oldness to the hobby, if the DM has never let talking be useful, or never hints that talking is a viable solution to avoid combat, then the DM has trained their table to expect fighting with the sole purpose of removing hitpoints until dead. This is actually pretty common, and it's a common DM mistake to suddenly shift gears in prep and not make that as obvious as a bat to the face for the players and then become disappointed that the players didn't guess how this time it was different.

Use your cluebats, DMs! At least until you've fixed your training mistakes.

And I don't think yours is closer in many ways (shocking huh ). How "soon" is this nuclear bomb going to go off and how many other "few" people could prevent it. Not to mention the fact that the officer in question hasn't been granted divine magical abilities from swearing to serve and protect. All that aside, even in your example "Ok." and just moving on would be questionable to say the least. Just let some random tank go about their business in your city, no questions asked, because you are part of a somewhat small group of people that hope to save the world in the mid-near future.



I am not making a lot of assumptions about what actually happened, because unless it was recorded that's unlikely to be verified. My point was about the paladin saying "Ok" or something very similar, I cannot say whether or not it happened in this case.



First of all I think you are doing more than "adding it back in". The OP said "and continue on the world-saving adventure the party are part way through" that sounds to me like the doctor is on their way to discovering the cure to cancer, not walking to a press conference with a solution in-hand. If they added more details later I missed it. Certainty and immediacy can make a lot of difference, don't you agree? For example; the world is going to literally blow up in 6 seconds, the paladin is a few steps away from a disarm button and nobody else is anywhere near it. Much more excusable than if he is one of a pool of people who might save the world at some point in the future.

Does it? If you think you have the cure for cancer, but it still needs trials, is it more okay to not report it as soon as possible to save as many lives as possible because you're not 100% and it'll still take some time? Morality doesn't really care about immediacy. If I save this person today at the cost of 1,000s tomorrow, that fact that it's a day later doesn't change the calculus. Certainty adds a wrinkle, certainly, but we're talking about either suicide and failing to save anyone or sacrificing one for the chance to save everyone down the line. You said you have a solution to the trolley problem -- what if it's don't switch and you kill 1 to maybe save 5 OR switch and you still kill the one guy, but also now yourself, and you reduce the chance those 5 can be saved? The calculus here is 1 dead maybe 6 saved or 2 dead, less chance of 5 saved. Immediacy and uncertainty play a role, but I don't think it's enough to clearly answer the question.

This is why I absolutely say this is up to the player. If they think this is a bad thing for their character, they should act to take steps to fix it -- atone, do penance, whatever. If they don't, that's on them, isn't it? They're no longer playing the character they though they were. I certainly support the DM asking the player about it. "Hey, Joe, Bob gave that guy up to the dragon. How does Bob feel about that with regards to their oaths?"

Sure, but morality is often about "less bad". For me there is a "right" answer to the trolley problem, but I don't (usually) argue that other's are wrong.



Mostly agree, a GM (in D&D at least, not the case in all games) shouldn't be telling players how to play their character. There is certainly stuff on the character sheet that the GM can clearly effect through the fictional world though; Height, weight, spells, inventory, pretty much everything including alignment. It should be (IMO) because of in-fiction reasons, and it shouldn't tell the PC how to play their character, at all. They should be free to have their character react to what happens in-fiction however they think their character might.



Which is fine if you are upfront about it. Personally, I can handle this sort of thing in other games (not my favorite to say the least) but when it gets pulled in D&D I just want to get up and leave. Luckily only seen it a few times. To be clear, I am talking about what someone(s) said early about having the player decide if the oath was broken, that sort of thing. Not my job as a player and it just sucks the life out of the fictional world if the GM is making me determine consequences for my PC.

Okay, this is kind of frustrating for me because there's not a terribly non-confrontational way to say this. Here goes: if you cannot play a paladin adhering to an oath without having a DM to hold you to it, I question whether or not you're actually trying to play a paladin-archetype character (which is fine, but lets call the spade a shovel). To me, I know my character, and if I'm going to have an important point to my roleplay of that character, I don't need someone else to police it for me. If I play a paladin, then I'm the one that has to feel the oath, it's strictures, and it's import. Having a DM define it according to how the DM thinks it should be robs me of that immersion and also crosses the line of the DM roleplaying my character for me.

Further to the absolute point, if I don't follow my oath, the DM still has a huge array of tools to level consequence that aren't telling me how my character feels or changing my character sheet. I'd have no problem with the actions of the PCs getting around and people treating them according to the choices they've made. Bob the Faithless or Bob the Coward or Bob the Blasphemer are all things I'd level as a DM, but I'll never tell a player how their character feels nor change anything on the character sheet. If I think that the player is abusing the game, that's not an in-character thing -- we need to have an OOC chat about play and what everyone at the table wants.

I see zero value in allowing the DM to define my character for me in any way. And, if you feel that considering your own character's moral situation pulls you out of the fictional world, it's possible we don't have enough common ground to discuss this.

 

[MoonSong]

You should leave the hat off. Duress is an affirmative defense.

 

[FrogReaver]

First, it was not a deal it was a coercive demand. "Do this" is not a deal even if you accede, when it accompanied by explicit or implicit "or else".

Second, we only have a single side of the story and it is light on detail.

I don't think there is any argument that the player demonstrated, at best, unskilled play. Attempting at a minimum to negotiate or investigate would have been better play. Players exhibit a wide range of skill. Even a skilled player demonstrates a wide range of adroitness during play. Players are also often 'trained' to respond in certain ways based on the DMs they've had in the past and by previous behaviour of the current one.

Frankly, I would say the same about the DM's play in this instance as well despite it being the DM's side of the story.

I find that when we start arguing for a point we often depart all logic and common sense.

You said the dragons offer isn’t a deal. That’s way to far out in left field

 

[Hussar]

I find that when we start arguing for a point we often depart all logic and common sense.

You said the dragons offer isn’t a deal. That’s way to far out in left field

No, it's not. A deal presumes that there is some degree of choice, no? Is it a deal if I cannot say no? Basically, you're saying that slavery is a deal, because, well, you could always kill yourself rather than be a slave. Not really a deal is it?

Pointlessly throwing away your life for no gain (it's not like the man would be saved if you died), is not in keeping with this paladin's oath. It's really as simple as that. There was no option here that was apparent to the player. I mean, there's talk about how the player should have resisted.

Ok, well, how much resistance would be acceptable? At what point can the player say, "Well, I tried"? When he's made a verbal gesture "You shall not have this man!" When he's lost 1 HP? When he's dealt 1 HP of damage? When he's dead?

As soon as you accept that the man is going to die, regardless of what the paladin does and the paladin has no way of saving this man, well, all we're doing after that is negotiating price.

 

[happyhermit]

... Morality doesn't really care about immediacy. If I save this person today at the cost of 1,000s tomorrow, that fact that it's a day later doesn't change the calculus.

In pure hypothetical ethical dilemma's we usually try to remove it as a factor and we deal with certainties. In more realistic scenarios it almost always becomes something like; "save this person today at the likely cost of 1000's tomorrow" and "save this person today at the potential cost of 1000's next year". Basically time creates uncertainty.

Certainty adds a wrinkle, certainly, but we're talking about either suicide and failing to save anyone or sacrificing one for the chance to save everyone down the line. You said you have a solution to the trolley problem -- what if it's don't switch and you kill 1 to maybe save 5 OR switch and you still kill the one guy, but also now yourself, and you reduce the chance those 5 can be saved? The calculus here is 1 dead maybe 6 saved or 2 dead, less chance of 5 saved. Immediacy and uncertainty play a role, but I don't think it's enough to clearly answer the question.

It's off-topic and personal but the correct answer for me doesn't depend on calculus, it's about the nature of being the "chooser of the slain".

This is why I absolutely say this is up to the player. If they think this is a bad thing for their character, they should act to take steps to fix it -- atone, do penance, whatever. If they don't, that's on them, isn't it? They're no longer playing the character they though they were. I certainly support the DM asking the player about it. "Hey, Joe, Bob gave that guy up to the dragon. How does Bob feel about that with regards to their oaths?"

I agree here, a player should have their PC do what they think they would, in the fictional world. Nothing wrong with asking players to describe how their PC feels about something either. Preferably they GM doesn't make them feel like they have to discuss it, unless it's crucial for some reason, IMO.

Okay, this is kind of frustrating for me because there's not a terribly non-confrontational way to say this. Here goes: if you cannot play a paladin adhering to an oath without having a DM to hold you to it, I question whether or not you're actually trying to play a paladin-archetype character (which is fine, but lets call the spade a shovel).

Nothing in my post talks about someone unable to play a paladin adhering to an oath without have a GM hold you to it. That's not what I am talking about at all, not sure where the misunderstanding is.

To me, I know my character, and if I'm going to have an important point to my roleplay of that character, I don't need someone else to police it for me.

Neither do I.

If I play a paladin, then I'm the one that has to feel the oath, it's strictures, and it's import. Having a DM define it according to how the DM thinks it should be robs me of that immersion and also crosses the line of the DM roleplaying my character for me.

Depends on the nature of the Paladin's oath in the fictional world. It is a "thing" that grants them divine magical powers, does it only depend on the feelings of the Paladin or does it have any connections or existence beyond that.

Further to the absolute point, if I don't follow my oath, the DM still has a huge array of tools to level consequence that aren't telling me how my character feels or changing my character sheet.

Again, I never said anything about a GM being able to tell a player how their PC feels.

...
I see zero value in allowing the DM to define my character for me in any way. And, if you feel that considering your own character's moral situation pulls you out of the fictional world, it's possible we don't have enough common ground to discuss this.

No, I don't feel that considering my character's moral situation pulls me out of the fictional world, and I find the implacation confusing in light of what I've written and rather insulting. Considering my PC's moral situation, and determining what my charachter does, thinks, feels, etc. is entirely separate from determining the in-fiction results (including for example, if a god or magical oath continues to grant me powers).

 

[Nagol]

I find that when we start arguing for a point we often depart all logic and common sense.

You said the dragons offer isn’t a deal. That’s way to far out in left field

An offer involves something the other wants but does not have. A threat involves something the other has and wants to keep. The dragon threatened.

"Give me your wallet and your watch" is not an offer it is a demand with an implied threat.

Similarly, "Give me your companion" is not an offer even when "and you can live" is attached. It is a demand with an overt threat attached.


"Give me your companion and I will save your from the flames" is an offer because it involves something the other wants.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You: Captain America is the perfect representation of the uncompromising paladin.
Me:

 

[Ovinomancer]

In pure hypothetical ethical dilemma's we usually try to remove it as a factor and we deal with certainties. In more realistic scenarios it almost always becomes something like; "save this person today at the likely cost of 1000's tomorrow" and "save this person today at the potential cost of 1000's next year". Basically time creates uncertainty.

Maybe in intro to philosophy courses, but the application of ethics deals, in large part, with decision making under uncertainty, often deep uncertainty. You can't handwave it away because it's hard -- that's the point.

It's off-topic and personal but the correct answer for me doesn't depend on calculus, it's about the nature of being the "chooser of the slain".

Interesting. In this case, though, it doesn't matter what's chosen, the NPC dies. That's a starting place -- this NPC dies, there is no choice that changes that. So, given that, and your preference for simple, isn't this a choice about whether the paladin commits suicide or not?

I agree here, a player should have their PC do what they think they would, in the fictional world. Nothing wrong with asking players to describe how their PC feels about something either. Preferably they GM doesn't make them feel like they have to discuss it, unless it's crucial for some reason, IMO.

Nothing in my post talks about someone unable to play a paladin adhering to an oath without have a GM hold you to it. That's not what I am talking about at all, not sure where the misunderstanding is.

Neither do I.

Depends on the nature of the Paladin's oath in the fictional world. It is a "thing" that grants them divine magical powers, does it only depend on the feelings of the Paladin or does it have any connections or existence beyond that.

Again, I never said anything about a GM being able to tell a player how their PC feels.

No, I don't feel that considering my character's moral situation pulls me out of the fictional world, and I find the implacation confusing in light of what I've written and rather insulting. Considering my PC's moral situation, and determining what my charachter does, thinks, feels, etc. is entirely separate from determining the in-fiction results (including for example, if a god or magical oath continues to grant me powers).

You said this: "To be clear, I am talking about what someone(s) said early about having the player decide if the oath was broken, that sort of thing. Not my job as a player and it just sucks the life out of the fictional world if the GM is making me determine consequences for my PC." I'm responding to it. If it isn't your job to determine if you've broken your oath, then you're asking the DM to do all the things I say above -- I don't see how you can avoid having the DM determine how your character feels because that's a large part of most of the oaths -- mens rea or a guilty mind. It's certainly a part of the severity of punishment.

So, if the DM not the player determines if your oath is broken, otherwise it pulls you out of the game, then:

There is no ability in your game for a player to hold themselves to an oath without the DM holding them to it.

The DM must establish how the PC feels about a potential violation to determine if the violation happens and what severity of punishment follows. Since it's the DM's job to determine if an oath is broken, then they have the ability to determine how your character feels. Otherwise, the DM is asking the player if they think they've broken their oath before applying punishment and that's not what you said.

And, as for your consideration of your character's morality being divorced from whether your character violates a morality clause in a magical oath (like all of the paladin oaths that have vague morality clauses), you cannot separate these things. Otherwise your, again, asking the DM to determine what your character actually thinks to determine if a morality clause is broken.

Look at your answer to the trolley problem. You focus on the choice made and why that choice was made. Unless that information is available outside of you, no one else can determine if your choice violates your moral understanding. That's the terrible beauty of the trolley problem -- you might strongly feel one way about it, but from the outside it's still a horrible tragedy as you could have saved those 5 people by pulling the lever and switching tracks. The internal thinking is what makes that a solution to you, not the objective actions judged by another's moral framework. And, if you're handing off the consideration of your oath to the DM to be judged according to what the DM thinks rather than your character, then you're giving up all of the things I post above whether you'd normally find doing so distasteful or not.