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

[pemerton]

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?

(1) It's not sucide.

(2) Yes, the paladin who hands over the NPC clearly is violating his oath to protect those entrusted to his care (I'm assuming the Oath of Devotion in framing it that way. But any paladin who has staked his/her honour on protecting this NPC is going to be in much the same boat.)

(3) Who said There are NO OTHER OPTIONS? Not the rules of 5e, as best I'm aware. How does bad GMing make it the case that the paladin didn't do the wrong thing?

After all, in character the paladin can't know there are no other options - as per @Wiseblood's recent post, the paladin may (and, if faithful, should) believe that there is still a possibility of things turning out well. And should s/he die, well that was also part of the providential plan.

 

[pemerton]

"Handing over the NPC is knowing and willing. Coerced acts are nevertheless willed acts (contrast automatism, or in the context of D&D magical compulsion)."

Wanting to understand this a bit, along with the comment about it not being suicide in this case to be killed by a dragon.

In this case, we have these facts in evidence from one side tedtimony.
Paladin was involved in world saving quest outside of this.
Paladin tried to carry some injured NPC to ssfety.
Paladin was caught and cornered by way beyond their power dragon.
Paladin tried to talk out of it, got "strong" result which led to the offer to give up the injured guy and leave.
Paladin agrees and lives - not a lot of detail about was he actually physically carrying etc during that part - the negotiation.


At this point, does it matter to you whether the paladin just walks away or physically hands over the injured? Is the paladin ok if he just walks away at this point? Was his fault the presumed physical act of "handing him over" or just the moral choice yo abandon him, stop protecting him?

Since the negotiation led to this offer, it seems obvious the remaining option either than the deal is fighting the dragon and...

I haven't picked up on the details of the negotiation. I don't see any reason in principle - and from the point of view of the fiction - why it has to stop at the dragon's offer as described. Maybe the GM decided that that was it. Why?

To me the whole thing smacks of terrible GMIng of the worst sort - though I guess there's always the caveat that I wasn't there and so can't know for sure.

If the GM had instead narrated "rocks fall, everybody dies" would anyone be arguing that, in the fiction, the PCs helms and armour should have kept them alive?

 

[Wiseblood]

People keep claiming that the paladin would be committing suicide. Suicide by dragon might be a thing in a D&D world. For it to be suicide the paladin would have to select it for the express purpose of being killed.

A suicide mission on the other hand implies an objective with higher purpose/value than ones own life. A mission that will almost certainly result in death.

 

[5ekyu]

(1) It's not sucide.

(2) Yes, the paladin who hands over the NPC clearly is violating his oath to protect those entrusted to his care (I'm assuming the Oath of Devotion in framing it that way. But any paladin who has staked his/her honour on protecting this NPC is going to be in much the same boat.)

(3) Who said There are NO OTHER OPTIONS? Not the rules of 5e, as best I'm aware. How does bad GMing make it the case that the paladin didn't do the wrong thing?

After all, in character the paladin can't know there are no other options - as per @Wiseblood's recent post, the paladin may (and, if faithful, should) believe that there is still a possibility of things turning out well. And should s/he die, well that was also part of the providential plan.

Tried to run - failed - was caught and cornered.
Tried to talk out of it - got strong result - this was it.
Player expressed after it was done to not die and be able to continue world saving quest.

It seems pretty clear that if there is dome new way around this it's not present at the table shown in that scene as far as we can tell.

Is your position that the paladin should just stand there and be killed? That letting the dragon kill both while hoping something else happens is not evil ?

How far down does this rabbit hole of being forced to believe a better option might pop up from somewhere, somehow go?

 

[5ekyu]

I haven't picked up on the details of the negotiation. I don't see any reason in principle - and from the point of view of the fiction - why it has to stop at the dragon's offer as described. Maybe the GM decided that that was it. Why?

To me the whole thing smacks of terrible GMIng of the worst sort - though I guess there's always the caveat that I wasn't there and so can't know for sure.

If the GM had instead narrated "rocks fall, everybody dies" would anyone be arguing that, in the fiction, the PCs helms and armour should have kept them alive?

See, here I dont know what you are arguing.

The player and the paladin in question was not dealing with some other case under some other gm... they were dealing with that scene at that table with that gm.

It seems like that player saw those events as conclusive, saw it as do or die.

In 5e, in social encounters a bad result can turn it worse by the rules of the book as well as common sebsecrulings.

So, if after an attempt at negotiation and a strong result you got to this offer, the idea that not accepting and trying again having a notable risk of going to "both dead" seems obvious.

Is trying to solve a puzzle, failing and making the best of the bad results. Evil in your book?

Why doesnt the quest at risk, saving the world or taking the loss, coming back to set it right not factor in here at all?

Is good that myopic?

 

[Yardiff]

Seems to me that the whole ight of hope sorta thing is dependent not on dying when a fight goes bad, not suicide oneself into hopeless fight but picking oneself back up after a loss and turning things back around?

So the Oath of the Ancients is protect the light as best you can but if push comes to shove save your own behind first?

 

[FrogReaver]

Tried to run - failed - was caught and cornered.
Tried to talk out of it - got strong result - this was it.
Player expressed after it was done to not die and be able to continue world saving quest.

It seems pretty clear that if there is dome new way around this it's not present at the table shown in that scene as far as we can tell.

Is your position that the paladin should just stand there and be killed? That letting the dragon kill both while hoping something else happens is not evil ?

How far down does this rabbit hole of being forced to believe a better option might pop up from somewhere, somehow go?

Yep. The paladin did just enough IMO to justify saving himself by sacrificing the NPC. I think he had a justified belief that there was no other way.

 

[Oofta]

(1) It's not sucide.

Doing something (or not doing something) that you know will end in your death is suicide. Provoking a fight with an adult dragon is no different than jumping in front of a moving truck.

So the Oath of the Ancients is protect the light as best you can but if push comes to shove save your own behind first?

The OP stated that the player believed there were no other options. He gave his best shot at saving the NPC and failed. Given the circumstances it was a logical conclusion. That's all that matters.

Nobody can save everyone. Being in a situation where you can't save someone may lead to survivor's guilt. As it says in the PHB, nobody is perfect and the paladin may need to seek absolution from another cleric or paladin.

 

[Yardiff]

This is what I understand about the scenerio from the posts of the game master.
The paladin was confronted by the dragon. They had a 'conversation' in which the paladin rolled a high persuasion check. From what I get from the OP posts this roll was for the paladins life but when the GM, in the heat of role play wanted to continue the scene having the dragon ask for the NPC the player felt that he was being put into a no win situation because he felt that he had already won with the high persuasion roll.
The GM had thought that the player would continue the role play.
Why didnt the player want to continue with role playing the scene to see where it would go? Do we know? No we dont.
At least this is my take on what had happened.

 

[Campbell]

I think from a moral perspective there is a phenomenal difference between not being able to act and actively doing something (even under durress) that runs counter to your belief system.