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

[jasper]

Since this is about to hit 30 pages, can the OP come back in and post the following in ONE post. What actually happen, what he was thinking, what the player was thinking, and what the OP is going to do?

 

[Maxperson]

A particularly important consideration when we add a paladin - at least as traditionally conceived - into the mix is the importance of hope. To cut the rope is to abandon hope. To treat the dragon's victory as inevitable is to abandon hope. This is the great theme of LotR, unsurprising given the theological underpinnings of JRRT's writings.

A paladin who abandons hope has not only turned his/her back on divine providence, but has - hubristically - elevated his/her own assessment of the situation above that of the divinity to whom s/he should be submitting. S/he is supposing that providence has ceased to play out in the situation. So closely allied to the wrong of abandoing hope is the wrong of prideful judgement. (Another recurring theme in LotR and the Silmarillion.)

Except this is not in the paladin class. Even in 1e, this was not written into it or required by it. You can assume that for your paladins this is true, but you shouldn't be assuming that it's true for everyone else.

 

[Maxperson]

The very fact that the dragon didn't attack immediately, but entered into negotiation/intimidation, should have indicated to the player character that there was room for negotiation. The PC didn't commit murder, but they were extremely lame. They acted like a cowardly Rogue not a brave Paladin. If they didn't want to follow their Oath they shouldn't have taken it, and the player should have chosen a different class.

Um. He did take it. This situation came about as the result of the highly successful negotiation. It's why the paladin was given the option to live.

 

[Maxperson]

On the mountain-climbing example, obviously opinions differ. Utilitarians say "cut the rope". Other moral persspecives may disagree...

Sure. They may disagree. However, with very few exception, those whose philosophy disagrees will still cut the rope when faced with the dichotomy of, "Cut the rope below you and live or cut the rope above you and both die." Few people want to die and the luxury of philosophy usually goes flying out the window when placed into the hard position.

 

[pemerton]

if a I was running a game in which the player of a paladin was acting expediently or trying to talk about how technically they weren't violating the code I would have a discussion with them to see if they really want to play a paladin. That sort of legal wrangling I expect and value from someone playing a warlock, Clerics and Paladins should not act like Warlocks.

Except this is not in the paladin class. Even in 1e, this was not written into it or required by it. You can assume that for your paladins this is true, but you shouldn't be assuming that it's true for everyone else.

What is the point of the paladin class?

Is it to evoke an archetype that has a history and a significance that extends back before PHB 1978, which Gygax et al drew upon?

Or is it to play a character within some technical boundaries which have no meaning beyond game rules to be complied with?

If the latter, then why is anyone in this thread talking about characters that were not constructed as game pieces to be played by those rules - such as Steve Rogers/Captain America?

If the former, then my comments about the importance of hope, and the avoidance of hubris, stand.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. They may disagree. However, with very few exception, those whose philosophy disagrees will still cut the rope when faced with the dichotomy of, "Cut the rope below you and live or cut the rope above you and both die." Few people want to die and the luxury of philosophy usually goes flying out the window when placed into the hard position.

How does the fact that many people fail to live up to their ideals under extreme circumstances show that the paladin did the right thing?

 

[Nagol]

Since this is about to hit 30 pages, can the OP come back in and post the following in ONE post. What actually happen, what he was thinking, what the player was thinking, and what the OP is going to do?

He did, a few pages back. Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next?

There's at last one after that as well.

 

[Maxperson]

What is the point of the paladin class?

Is it to evoke an archetype that has a history and a significance that extends back before PHB 1978, which Gygax et al drew upon?

Or is it to play a character within some technical boundaries which have no meaning beyond game rules to be complied with?

If the latter, then why is anyone in this thread talking about characters that were not constructed as game pieces to be played by those rules - such as Steve Rogers/Captain America?

If the former, then my comments about the importance of hope, and the avoidance of hubris, stand.

The point is to play a good and holy warrior with abilities. There are many varieties of those. Part of that point is that specifically when willingly violating things, you lose your abilities. That clause being written into every incarnation of the class where abilities could be taken away is proof that paladins are not expected to be perfect in keeping to their oaths and that they can be placed into situations such as the one in this thread and it's okay to make the hard choice to survive.

 

[Maxperson]

How does the fact that many people fail to live up to their ideals under extreme circumstances show that the paladin did the right thing?

Because pointless death is not the right thing.

Edit: A paladin killing himself would also be both evil and unlawful, especially as the paladin was envisioned(after the Peers of Charlemagne who were Roman Catholic and Arthurian knights who were also Catholic). If a paladin finds himself in a position where he can only save himself or commit suicide, such as on the rope or with the dragon, he is obligated to save himself.

 

[Hussar]

Where do the mechanics say that this situation has to be resolved via combat?
How does this have any relevance to whether or not the paladin did the right or wrong thing?

Umm, have you actually read the thread?

There are two possible outcomes:

Either the paladin resists and both die or the paladin doesn't resist and only the man dies. Those are the two outcomes.

You keep trying to weasel out with other what-if's, but, there are no other solutions. There are TWO outcomes. Full stop.

Now, is it moral to commit suicide to gain nothing? Is it a violation of a paladin's oath to pointlessly throw away his life? Do you actually believe that the paladin MUST throw away his life here or he is willingly violating his oath?

Can you actually answer a direct question? Let me be 100% clear so there is no waffling.

The situation is as follows:

a) The paladin resists IN ANY WAY - talking, fighting, anything other than immediate acquiescence - and he dies and the man dies.
b) The paladin does not resist and survives, while the man still dies.

There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.

Q1 - Do you feel that a paladin's oath obligates him to commit suicide in this case?
Q2 - Is the paladin willingly violating his oath?