D&D 5E (2014) Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next?

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, it must be remembered, this isn't the real world!

Here the Paladin's conviction (a) God stands with him is actually true!

Now is that enough to save him from the hungry Adult Dragon? Maybe not, but if not, the paladin then gets his eternal reward in the realm of his God, so still a win.

It isn't a given that the player will see it that way. While I do think that the fiction is important, I believe we mustn't forget that there are real people sitting at the table who are ostensibly playing a game for fun. In my opinion, the latter is just as important as the former.

 

[Nagol]

Unless this is intended to be a twist, that's a terrible one liner, because the scared meat here clearly isn't the hypothetical Paladin.

Now, if that's a twist, then if your dragon is being honest then he was with his earlier bargain deceiving the Paladin and intended to eat him if and only if he shows fear.

In this version of the fight, I guess the dragon chomps the terrified NPC and leaves anyway, taking trivial damage from the Paladin and now we can play out crisis of faith/renewed oaths sort of scenes?

Or perhaps in this version the Paladin's heroic speech convinces the NPC to buck up, and since neither person was suitably seasoned with fear, the dragon goes elsewhere in the buffet for food?

No, like I typed, I'm not good in the moment. That's the level of repartee you can expect from me. That and memorized one-liners. "I do not drink... wine" which doesn't quite fit. Maybe "After you, perhaps I'll have a single wafer-thin mint!".

If I were the paladin, I'd probably blurt out "What do you want? Oh yeah you already told me didn't you!"

And?

And gotcha scenarios are the responsibility of the framer. Getting out of them is also the responsibility of the person who set them up. That responsibility limits the possible responses the universe can take at least as much as a player must limit his responses when playing despite "but that's what my character would do".

If I were the DM and set this up one of two things happened:

• It was deliberate and so a fall will occur because that or death was my intention
• It was am error and I will find a way to repair the situation

If I'm looking at the second option then I cannot let the paladin fall irretrievably. I cannot allow the player to feel it is his fault alone because that way lies despair and a replaced character / abandoned game. So either (a) the man is not dead and the paladin receives a message that his penance is to rescue him, (b) the man is dead and the paladin must recover what he can and... <fill in some melodramatic short quest>, or (c) the man was destined to die to accomplish <something> and now that he has <this other thing needs doing>.

 

[Nagol]

So stripped of flowery language:

1. Be kind, mercifull and forgiving. Through these acts, inspire hope in others.

2. Stand against evil and those that would do evil. Protect life.

3. Have fun and spread joy ( definitely different from oath of devotion here, a hedonist paladin)

4. Show courage in all things.

So in this scenario (leaving aside, for the moment, the merit of the scenario) the paladin very clearly violated tenants 2 and 4 of his oath. He very well may be in divine hot water.

Next: while I don't love the scenario, as presented it reads very much - heads I win, tails you lose for the paladin - I like the players response even less.

It was, basically, "ok, here you go." There should have been some attempt at deflection and resolution other than death of the victim (I realize the player had little to go on).

At the very least the player should have broken character and said something like "seriously? A no win?" And the DM could have engaged in a conversation re: expectations.

Depends on how quick-witted the player is and how experienced as well.

Quick-witted players are more likely to consider negotiation or trying to pull a rabbit out of their hat (and then depending on what's going on in the DM;s head, getting eaten).

New players are unlikely to think of the situation as a no-win until the consequences are rubbed in their face and they realize there wasn't a railroady reason they were told to do this by a dragon.

 

[CleverNickName]

From "The Hobbit," by J.R.R. Tolkien:

It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterwards were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait. At any rate after a short halt go on he did; and you can picture him coming to the end of the tunnel, an opening of much the same size and shape as the door above. Through it peeps the hobbit’s little head. Before him lies the great bottom-most cellar or dungeon-hall of the ancient dwarves right at the Mountain’s root. It is almost dark so that its vastness can only be dimly guessed, but rising from the near side of the rocky floor there is a great glow. The glow of Smaug!

There he lay, a vast red-golden dragon, fast asleep; a thrumming came from his jaws and nostrils, and wisps of smoke, but his fires were low in slumber. Beneath him, under all his limbs and his huge coiled tail, and about him on all sides stretching away across the unseen floors, lay countless piles of precious things, gold wrought and unwr--

"Aw come on, seriously?" Bilbo Baggins called out toward the ceiling, the whine of his voice tearing through the fourth wall like a record scratch. "Smaug's a friggin' dragon?! You are a terrible DM, John Tolkien! Is this supposed to be fun? If you aren't gonna give me encounters that I can win, I quit!"

 

[Nagol]

It is. And the fact that it is, is precisely why this Steve Rogers is the best written version of the character probably ever.



I have no idea, but I bet Steve would have a snappy one liner that was encouraging and at the same time filled with pithy wisdom.

and then he gets eaten because this is D&D not a movie.

 

[Nagol]

From "The Hobbit," by J.R.R. Tolkien:

It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterwards were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait. At any rate after a short halt go on he did; and you can picture him coming to the end of the tunnel, an opening of much the same size and shape as the door above. Through it peeps the hobbit’s little head. Before him lies the great bottom-most cellar or dungeon-hall of the ancient dwarves right at the Mountain’s root. It is almost dark so that its vastness can only be dimly guessed, but rising from the near side of the rocky floor there is a great glow. The glow of Smaug!

There he lay, a vast red-golden dragon, fast asleep; a thrumming came from his jaws and nostrils, and wisps of smoke, but his fires were low in slumber. Beneath him, under all his limbs and his huge coiled tail, and about him on all sides stretching away across the unseen floors, lay countless piles of precious things, gold wrought and unwrought, gems and jewels, and silver red-stained in the ruddy light.

"Aw come on, seriously?" Bilbo Baggins called out toward the ceiling, the whine of his voice tearing through the fourth wall like a record scratch. "A friggin' dragon?! You are a terrible DM, John Tolkien! Is this supposed to be fun? If you aren't gonna give me encounters that I can win, I quit!"

If Smaug were awake and specifically menacing poor Bilbo at the time, you'd be closer.

 

[CleverNickName]

If Smaug were awake and specifically menacing poor Bilbo at the time, you'd be closer.

Even so, that take on the story is still hilarious.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think that there are two different discussions going on here, and that they're getting conflated is the reason for some of the discussions getting more heated.

1) The actions of the DM in creating an encounter that appeared to be a no-win scenario against an arbitrarily too-powerful opponent. If they did telegraph the solution, the player did not pick up on it and so was presented with a potential loss of ability or enjoyment playing their character.

2) The in-game actions of the Paladin of Ancients that chose to hand over a casualty to die in order to live to continue on their world-saving quest.

For 1, we don't know the full story, but it does seem an unpleasantly adversarial thing to do, particularly without the player's buy-in. I do not believe that the DM should have created that situation in the first place, but would be interested to know why they did: there may be a good reason I'm missing.

For 2, its a bit trickier since handing over an injured person to be eaten is against the oath, but so too would be failure to do your best to save the world. DM will be arbiter on that, but should understand the reasoning of the paladin before they make a judgement. DM might have final say, but if they've not informed the player of their opinion of how it works, the player might have made a choice based on how they thought the DM views it rather than how the DM actually views it.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

…not necessarily evil.

I guess I should have expected that. Discussions like this always have some player arguing that the evil act their character did is not really evil. My usual response is short and NSFW.

What I read in the first post in this thread is a character performing a blatantly evil act. No attempt at exploring options (fight, flight, negotiation, anything), just, "Sacrifice a innocent to save my skin? OK." If a player did this in my game and then tried to argue that their character's act wasn't evil, I would stop the discussion and invite the player to leave.

Justifying evil acts with weasel words is bad, in-game and out. If your character is evil then be honest and own up to it. And then live with the consequences.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I guess I should have expected that. Discussions like this always have some player arguing that the evil act their character did is not really evil. My usual response is short and NSFW.

What I read in the first post in this thread is a character performing a blatantly evil act. No attempt at exploring options (fight, flight, negotiation, anything), just, "Sacrifice a innocent to save my skin? OK." If a player did this in my game and then tried to argue that their character's act wasn't evil, I would stop the discussion and invite the player to leave.

Justifying evil acts with weasel words is bad, in-game and out. If your character is evil then be honest and own up to it. And then live with the consequences.

Then let justice be done, though the table sits empty.