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

[Ovinomancer]

As I said that would be you and others reading into that sentence.

Except the OP agreed with my summary that included the player thinking they had exhausted the options.

 

[5ekyu]

I was referring to the bolded.

Later the original,poster did add there was a "strong result" to a negotiation to get to the offer.

 

[Oofta]

As I said that would be you and others reading into that sentence.

What am I reading into it? The DM who was actually there relayed his impression of the player's state of mind.

I've also stated that under similar situation I would also believe that I had exhausted all my options. Or are you telling me what my opinion is as well?

The point is simple. A reasonable player may well have concluded that they had done the best they could to save the NPC. IMHO it's not an evil act to not throw your life away in an attempt to save every NPC that is in danger.

The DM may have had something else in mind and he made a mistake and did not communicate that to the player. He admits that. DMs, much like paladins, make mistakes now and then.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

It's clear in Gygax's alignment descriptions (in his PHB and DMG) that LG isn't some "diluted" form of good. LG persons aspire to be maximally good, and believe that law (whatever exactly that means) is an essential means thereto. Conversely, the CG also aspire to be maximally good, but they believe that individual self-realisation rather than social order is the best means thereto.

Hmmm. It's a little hard to reconcile your theory that Gygax wanted the Law/Chaos axis to be a sub-choice within the Good/Evil axis with the fact that the Law/Chaos axis came first. Frankly it also makes the whole 9 alignment system useless; that's a reasonable change to want to make, along the lines of the 4E 5-alignment system which essentially made lawful a flavor of good, and chaotic a flavor of evil.

But the Law / Chaos divide was the original alignment; D&D owed to Moorcock and it makes them game much richer and more interesting to think of the two axes as actual axes rather than one just being a flavor of another. Perhaps Gygax changed his thinking when he added the good/evil axis, but the latest version does not have lawful good people strive only for maximal good, as you say. Here's a more modern definition of LG:

"A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty, though will often regret taking any action they fear would violate their code; even if they recognize such action as being good"

Note that it specifically says they will regret taking unlawful actions which are good. They are not striving for maximal goodness and this definition clearly states that they are conflicted between law/duty and good. I really think this is the general position and your suggestion that there is never a conflict as law is always subservient to maximal good is not the usual one.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Not a lot of wars would be won with soldiers who had this attitude. I find it striking that people expect less from a fictional Paladin than armies traditionally expected from common soldiers IRL.

 

[Oofta]

Not a lot of wars would be won with soldiers who had this attitude. I find it striking that people expect less from a fictional Paladin than armies traditionally expected from common soldiers IRL.

There are many situations where soldiers will rebel or surrender if they feel their lives are being spent pointlessly. Many soldiers stay out of sense of camaraderie, because they believe they can make a difference, because if they go AWOL they'll be courtmarshalled.

Nobody expects a fireman to run into a burning building after a certain point when it's obvious they could not survive the blaze even if there are innocents in danger. That does not make them murderers.

 

[Yardiff]

A reasonable player may well have concluded that they had done the best they could to save the NPC.

I disagree with you on what seems to be reasonable. Personally I'd have found it reasonable to have continued 'negotiation'. We werent there for the actual 'conversation' so we dont know just how much was said on either side.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree with you on what seems to be reasonable. Personally I'd have found it reasonable to have continued 'negotiation'. We werent there for the actual 'conversation' so we dont know just how much was said on either side.

You were not the player. You cannot speak for every player in existence. The OP stated they believed the player thought they were f'ed.

I think the player made a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree with you on what seems to be reasonable. Personally I'd have found it reasonable to have continued 'negotiation'. We werent there for the actual 'conversation' so we dont know just how much was said on either side.

So let's say you were the DM for this scenario. You discuss it with the player after the game. They tell you

​

"I gave it my best shot. I saw no way of surviving the encounter with the dragon. I believed any more discussion would lead to my death in addition to the death of the NPC. As much as I would have liked to save the NPC, I didn't see any alternative. My mission to save the world is more important."​

You're honestly saying you would tell them that they committed an egregiously evil act and their options are to write up a new character or become an oathbreaker?

 

[Campbell]

I would not say it was egregiously evil and they need to become an Oathbreaker. I would have a discussion about what kind of character they want to play. There would probably be some kind of divine censure or penance required. It might have been in service to the greater good, but it was still an evil act.

I would have explained that during play when they declared their action, before we were committed to it.