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

[Hussar]

I discussed how as a Pal-1 we faced the same choice as this Pal-7 did!! Whether to stand up to overwhelmingly superior force to defend the innocent. I disagree that 'the gods must be silent' for a choice to be hard in the moment.

Edit: However if the choice is between 'maybe be eaten by dragon' and 'definitely become an NPC', I'd agree that's not really a choice. Whereas 'maybe be eaten by dragon' vs 'break your oath and incur the contempt of your god, society & comrades' is a tough choice.

Now, did the DM at the time wipe your party and kill everyone? Or did you somehow "survive" the encounter and win in the end?

See, that's the trick right there. How would you feel about your "we defended the innocents" and were instantly killed? And then the bad guys killed everyone else too. Would you still think that it was the right thing to do?

There's a serious sense that the DM should save Lawful Stupid paladins seeming to float around here.

 

[S'mon]

Now, did the DM at the time wipe your party and kill everyone? Or did you somehow "survive" the encounter and win in the end?

See, that's the trick right there. How would you feel about your "we defended the innocents" and were instantly killed? And then the bad guys killed everyone else too. Would you still think that it was the right thing to do?

There's a serious sense that the DM should save Lawful Stupid paladins seeming to float around here.

We negotiated, like I said. Same as this Pally should have done. The baddies ended up getting some/most of the rice they wanted, but the peasants were left enough to not starve, AIR.

If we had attacked the baddies and been killed, we would have been foolish.
If we had not stood up for the peasants, we would have been cowardly.
If we had done what we did - negotiate - and still been killed, we would have done the right thing, according to my Pally's oath.

As a player, I'd be ok with the 3rd outcome if we flubbed our dice rolls; if we had no chance to survive it might seem like unfair GMing. But out PCs would still have done the right thing in-universe.

 

[Hussar]

See, there's a difference between your situation and the dragon. There was no sense from the player that the dragon would negotiate. It was 2 choices - die with the NPC or walk away. There was no third option.

My issue with this is, you've set it up that a paladin can never actually fail. You might not get a total success, but, you can't actually fail because any failure is automatically a violation of an oath. So, the DM is forced to allow you to succeed every time.

So, you negotiate, the entire party is killed then the peasants are killed. Maybe the peasants are even killed in nastier ways because now the baddies are really angry because you resisted them.

I prefer scenarios where failure is possible. If I tell the players that there is an overwhelming force coming, then, you can bet that that force is overwhelming and standing up like that is suicidal and will accomplish nothing. It seems like you and @pemerton are saying that I should always have other options available and that those other options will always come true.

Talk to the dragon and negotiate. Talk to the overwhelming force. No problems, it will work out because the DM will step in and make sure that nothing really bad will happen to you.

To me, failure is FAR more interesting.

As a player, I'd be ok with the 3rd outcome if we flubbed our dice rolls; if we had no chance to survive it might seem like unfair GMing. But out PCs would still have done the right thing in-universe.

See, to me, it's not. It's reckless, pointless and a total violation of what a paladin should be. Throwing away your lives on pointless gestures that accomplish nothing is not in keeping with what a paladin should be.

Good grief, imagine what a paladin army would be like? Incredibly stupid and easily destroyed because all you have to do is threaten some innocents, make sure you have an overwhelming force, and every paladin smiles as he jumps on your swords. Yeah, I don't think so.

 

[S'mon]

See, there's a difference between your situation and the dragon. There was no sense from the player that the dragon would negotiate.

The dragon was already negotiating!

 

[pemerton]

To me, it's arguments like this, and @pemerton and @Celebrim that make playing paladins such an incredible drag on the game and the main reason why everyone hates paladins. So many DM's see paladins as a giant neon sign saying, "Hey, here's a big juicy button! Push it and screw over the player and you don't even have to appologize because it's all part of the game!"

My problem is that there are a number of DM's here who have decided that there is one, and only one, right answer and if I don't guess that right answer, I'm failing as a paladin and that it's somehow the DM's duty to punish me for failing to live up to their interpretation of my character. That there is some sort of magic "right answer" in the scenario. That's what flies up my nose.

There is no "right" answer. There are just answers. And what the paladin player chooses to do after the situation is far, far more interesting to me than what he does in the moment. Does he choose to sacrifice his character? Ok, fair enough. Does he choose to live and then deal with the consequences? Much more interesting to me.

But, having the DM tell me, after my choice is made, "You have chosen...poorly. Welcome to being a fighter" would be such a crock. It's such a waste of a fantastic opportunity and all it does is piss off the player for absolutely no gain.

Please re-read my posts. I've said nothing about "welcome to being a fighter". I've said very little about GMing except to praise the approach of my GM in the Burning Wheel campaign where I play a paladin (technically, a Knight of a Holy Military Order).

As for the suggestion that my approach makes playing paladins a drag on the game: I GM a 4e game with two paladins (technically one is a fighter/cleric but that's a mere technicality) as well as an invoker and a religiously devout sorcerer. At the moment the main game I'm GMing is Prince Valiant, with three knight PCs, two of who are respectively Master and Marshall of a holy order (the Order of St Sigobert). And as I already mentioned I play a paladin in the BW campaign that I play in. (For the past 10 years I have not played a PC who is not a paladin.)

If you're interested in my views on GM-adjudicated/enforced alignment, they haven't changed since I started this thread in 2011.

But I didn't enter this thread in response to a question about my views on GMing, or alignment mechanics. You asked how to reconcile the Cap/Bucky scene with the view that the OP paladin did the wrong thing. That's all. And I replied to that with an analysis that I think any undergrad moral philosophy student would recognise as familiar. (Whether or not they personally agree with the morality of duty and ethic of honour.)

IOW, I, as the player, should assume that the DM will not kill my character (as the DM is the source of divine providence) and should meta-game accordingly?

Why is the DM the source of divine providence? Where is that written?

We have character abilities. We have player-side resources. We have the framing of stakes. We have the roll of the dice. The whole panoply of action resolution. The 5e rulebooks don't define action resolution as whatever the GM decides, happens.

 

[pemerton]

if we had no chance to survive it might seem like unfair GMing. But out PCs would still have done the right thing in-universe.

I agree with this. This GM may well have been unfair. But that's not relevant to the question of whether or not the paladin did the right thing. It is relevant to the question of whether or not I would want to play (a paladin? at all?) in this GM's game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I discussed how as a Pal-1 we faced the same choice as this Pal-7 did!! Whether to stand up to overwhelmingly superior force to defend the innocent. I disagree that 'the gods must be silent' for a choice to be hard in the moment.

Edit: However if the choice is between 'maybe be eaten by dragon' and 'definitely become an NPC', I'd agree that's not really a choice. Whereas 'maybe be eaten by dragon' vs 'break your oath and incur the contempt of your god, society & comrades' is a tough choice.

You may have missed it, but the OP clarified a few pages back that the paladin DID try to negotiate. Not only that, but he rolled a good persuasion check to do so. The OP responded with the "eat the NPC" bargain, to which he expected a response of righteous indignation. However, at that point it sounds like the PLAYER assumed the DM was putting him in a no-win and gave in rather than drag out the scenario.

Personally, I don't blame the player for not reading the DM's mind. The OP even admitted that it was a bad call.

 

[Hussar]

We have character abilities. We have player-side resources. We have the framing of stakes. We have the roll of the dice. The whole panoply of action resolution. The 5e rulebooks don't define action resolution as whatever the GM decides, happens.

Well, the mechanics in this case say that the paladin dies. Full stop. The paladin cannot possibly survive this encounter. This is an adult dragon vs a low level single PC. He's not going to win. Attempting to fight is suicidal.

So, when you talk about "providence" the only option here is the DM fudging the mechanics to the point where the paladin doesn't lose.

Frankly @pemerton, I could not care less about your other games. I REALLY REALLY don't care.

From now on, if you are not directly referencing THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION, I will not respond to you. I have no interest in what aboutits or hypotheticals or anything else. I DO NOT CARE. So, if you want me to respond, please keep on the actual topic, otherwise, don't bother responding to me.

 

[Hussar]

The dragon was already negotiating!

See, this is where we differ. Give me this or I kill you is not negotiation. It's a threat, a very credible one and, if I'm DMing, will result in your immediate death if you do anything other than give me what I want. Any attempt to equivocate, negotiate or otherwise do anything other than what I just told you to do will result in your character's immediate death.

And, if I'm the player, that's exactly how I'm going to view this situation. Because, frankly, there's no in character reason to think otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

Well, the mechanics in this case say that the paladin dies. Full stop. The paladin cannot possibly survive this encounter. This is an adult dragon vs a low level single PC. He's not going to win. Attempting to fight is suicidal.

Where do the mechanics say that this situation has to be resolved via combat?

See, this is where we differ. Give me this or I kill you is not negotiation. It's a threat, a very credible one and, if I'm DMing, will result in your immediate death if you do anything other than give me what I want.

How does this have any relevance to whether or not the paladin did the right or wrong thing?