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

[FrogReaver]

Obviously the first and most obvious way to verify he cannot win is to try and win and fail.

Most likely result, two dead.

Try what and fail? I think context is important here. Try to gather more information to determine if this is a no win-scenario or try to win the scenario.

In the first case failing that goal is fine as it's either going to leave other options on the table or it's going to push the situation closer to a no-win scenario. In either case the necessary information regarding the scenario will be had in order to justify the paladins actions.

keeps coming back to an requirement to keep trying in spite of previous efforts to win that failed?
not sure where that train ends.

Never. You keep trying to validate it as a no-win scenario until you've either reasonably validated it at as one or you find the winning solution.

An example of reasonable certainty that it's a no win scenario - the dragon starts a countdown and the countdown is right at expiring. The dragon noticeably gets more agitated when you respond with more talk than answering it's question, indicating that some unknown amount of talk will trigger the dragon to just kill you both.

Any of these outcomes would have reasonably validated the scenario as no-win (or at least as only having a rabit out of a hat style solution). It's at that step when acting for the greater good is desirable IMO.

if he tries to negotiate and that fails, then what? Find another "try a new way to win" to validate he cannot win? keep risking failure again and again and losing any chance of returning to right the wrong... asd infinutum?

I think you are not fully understanding what validation that it's a no-win scenario looks like. As long as that validation isn't there then it's not moral to do otherwise immoral acts just because you think a scenario might be no-win.

or is there a number, some holy figure, minimum number of "risk it agains" after trying and failing before the oath is fulfilled?

I don't think this section deserves a response.

Lets look at a similar example - same exact situiation with ONE change - he was carrying two injured victims to safety - a man and a child.

Dragon gives him the same offer, turn over the man and the rest go free.

Sounds like a good example so far.

Now, is it still beholden on the paladin to fulfill his oath to risk the child and himself to keep trying? Since we have established that this world ending quest wasn't enough to warrant the choice to give in to the dragon, clearly this extra child wont sway the oath-breaking repercussions.

Right?

Agreed. He still needs to reasonably validate it's a no-win scenario first.

The what-if scenario you appear to be fixated on is: "attempting to validate the situation as no-win is an action that could trigger the dragon to outright kill everyone." That's possible yes. So let me address that.

There are two important factors to morality, what did you do and what you know. Since there would be know way to know or validate that our attempt to validate the situation as no-win then doing so would not be immoral even if it resulted in the death of you and the NPC.

Also, speaking of validation, the paladin hadn't even validated that the dragon would actually let him live after giving him the NPC. If the Paladin had given the dragon the man and if the dragon came back and ate the Paladin as well, would we really be saying the Paladin did the most moral thing? The important point is that this was a real possibility and a possibility that weighs heavily in the attempt to reasonable validate the situation before acting.

After all, its got to be about the paladin and his oath... that is what heroic means, right?

I'm not sure what being heroic has to do with being moral. There's surely some overlap, but not

 

[FrogReaver]

Not really. What matters is whether or not a violation is willful. If the paladin comes up with a mental justification for why he is going to willfully do something, he's still violating his oath and needs to repent or lose his powers. With the dragon, the paladin was forced by virtue of death if he doesn't, to hand over the NPC. That force makes the violation an unwillful one, since the will of the paladin would have been not to hand over the PC.

Yes really, absolutely any action can be justified with the greater good. Killing 10,000 people = good as long as you prevented 10,001 from being killed. Locking up potential criminals before they commit violent crimes is good even if you lock up some people that never could violent crimes as long as you save more lives, or at least enough lives such that imprisoning even a potentially greater number of people so long as you can calculate the net good as greater.

"Shall we do evil that good may come. God Forbid"

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Your still in left field. All you seem to be arguing is that it wasn't a fair deal. Deals don't have to be fair. It was a deal by every definition of the word except yours.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

Just because the deal involves life or enslavement or imprisonment or whatever doesn't mean it is not a deal.

Even in modern society, Deals obtained through the overt threat of violence are still deals. They typically could be legally nullified due to the coercion used in obtaining them. But they are/were deals nonetheless.

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.

There is nearly always the option of validating the no-win scenario is as we initially perceive it. It is important to do that when the action we are about to do would be evil in all circumstances except the no-win situation. The Paladin had options. He chose to not pursue them. Those actions may have changes the outcome and allowed both to live, or they may have cost them both their life. Anything is possible.

But one of the basic and universal pillars of morality is to not do otherwise evil acts unless we are near certain there is no other option, and then and only then is it okay to pick the option that's the least of 2 evils. The simply fact is that the Paladin did nothing to confirm or attempt to confirm that his situation really was a no-win scenario. He had an unjustified belief that it was a no-win situation and acted on that unjustified belief. That's the immoral aspect. If he had justified his belief first that it really was a no-win situation then he could have freely chose the lesser of 2 evils which was the evil that left him alive and the other dead.

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?

Direct open combat with the dragon is not moral - unless possibly done as an attempted stalling tactic to allow the NPC a chance at getting away. But more importantly, there are more ways to resist than direct combat.

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.

But the belief that the Paladin accepting the man is going to die no matter what he does has to be justified both for us and for the Paladin. It's not enough to believe something, that belief must have justification.

 

[happyhermit]

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?

First of all, I don't have a preference for simple, whatever you mean by that. Second of all, the Paladin had many options other than saying "Ok." At least one option was mentioned to result in both people surviving.

... 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 ...

It's quite simple, I determine how my character feels, the GM determines the results. I might delude myself into thinking I am doing the right thing, as enumerable bad-guys in fiction and reality have done, but that doesn't mean I am still good. I might convince myself that I am still honouring a contract when I clearly am not. People are able to convince themselves, at least (especially) for a limited time, that they are doing "the right thing" even when they aren't. So like I said, it really depends on the nature of the oath in the "world", is it 100% dependent on the Paladin's feelings, ie; could one with the most good and pure of oaths do vile and evil things, as long as they are convinced it's right, or is there any degree of externality that will come into play.

To clarify even more, if the GM tells me my powers are wavering or gone, that doesn't tell me how I feel. I might feel a million different ways about it.

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.

Of course a player can hold themselves to an oath.

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.

If a Paladin's oath was to protect the innocent and they spend 6 months killing babies, does the GM need to know how the Paladin feels, or is the oath going to be in jeopardy anyways. If the Paladin is convinced that killing them is the surest way to protect them from the evils of the world, and the oath is still secure, then that is a very particular kind of world.

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.

No, I can "feel" like I am honourable or honouring something, when I am not.

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.

I can determine what my character feels, the GM determines the results. What I really don't like and was referencing earlier, was the suggestion (and I'm not sure who all made it) to ask the player what they think should happen to their PC in-game, as a result, and then doing that. What you have posted lately seems less problematic for my preferences, and really just seems to reflect your view of the nature of the paladin's oath in the fictional world. You seem to view it as solely depending on the feelings of the Paladin in question, and therefore completely mutable, only limited by the credulity of their own mind. I could have fun playing in a world like that (not my favorite but it's fine), but if I feel like I break my oath and you ask me to determine what the consequences will be in-game... that sucks.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes really, absolutely any action can be justified with the greater good. Killing 10,000 people = good as long as you prevented 10,001 from being killed. Locking up potential criminals before they commit violent crimes is good even if you lock up some people that never could violent crimes as long as you save more lives, or at least enough lives such that imprisoning even a potentially greater number of people so long as you can calculate the net good as greater.

"Shall we do evil that good may come. God Forbid"

Nope. Big difference between what you are describing and what I described. In any case, "the greater good" argument is irrelevant as a whole. This is about the oath requiring that this paladin not let his light die out so that he can continue to be an example to others.

 

[Maxperson]

Your still in left field. All you seem to be arguing is that it wasn't a fair deal. Deals don't have to be fair. It was a deal by every definition of the word except yours.

Except the actual definition. You can't be coerced into a deal. Deals are voluntary.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except the actual definition. You can't be coerced into a deal. Deals are voluntary.

Please go find me that definition. I’ll accept any dictionary you find that shows coercion matters

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope. Big difference between what you are describing and what I described. In any case, "the greater good" argument is irrelevant as a whole. This is about the oath requiring that this paladin not let his light die out so that he can continue to be an example to others.

You say nope and spend 3 sentences then explaining why it doesn’t matter but never elaborating on why you said nope. Very peculiar

Keep in mind my point in our exchange was simply that a greater good argument can justify any action, including flat out evil actions. That you disagree with that is amazing to me

 

[Maxperson]

Please go find me that definition. I’ll accept any dictionary you find that shows coercion matters

As you will see, it's an AGREEMENT entered into. There can be no agreement when one side is forced. That's why it's forced. If both sides were in an agreement, no force would be necessary and a deal could be made.

deal
/dēl/

verb

1. 
   distribute (cards) in an orderly rotation to players for a game or round.
   "the cards were dealt for the last hand"
   
   
   
2. 
   take part in commercial trading of a particular commodity.
   "directors were prohibited from dealing in the company's shares"
   
   noun
   1. 
      an agreement entered into by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, especially in a business or political context.
      "the band signed a major recording deal"