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

[Nagol]

Maybe if you didn't reply to my responses to other people so antagonistically

Nope that's not it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Was it? Is the dragon real? Is it all just a test? Does the dragon really want to eat the man or rescue a confederate? Or maybe the man knows something and the dragon needs the information! Maybe the dragon actually wants to help the man but doesn't think anyone will believe that in his current colour. Who knows?

Maybe. All the more reason to talk first.

 

[Nagol]

Maybe if you didn't reply to my responses to other people so antagonistically

I apologize if I sound antagonistic. I thought we were just having fun.

 

[Celebrim]

Since the Oath of an Ancients paladin expressly does not include Chivalric concepts of duty or honor (my typo almost made that horror ) , then nothing he did actually violated his oath.

Wait, what? He's in clear violation of at least two tenants of the Oath. In fact, this scenario seems to be tailor designed to trial one of axioms of the oath in a literal fashion.

"Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren."

He literally stood aside and allowed someone to be literally swallowed.

If you boil down the "Oath of the Ancients" oath it is all about being a beacon of Hope: "kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.", "stand against the wickedness that would swallow it", "Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair.", "Let the light of your...courage shine forth in all your deeds."

This is a story of a "Oath of the Ancients" Paladin that has given in to despair and hopelessness, and cowardly stood aside to let another human being be literally swallowed, by his own admission to save his own skin, and you don't think he actually violated this oath????

 

[FrogReaver]

I apologize if I sound antagonistic. I thought we were just having fun.

When you and I have already discussed a point and then someone else replies and I make the same point to them and then you jump in with the same rebuttal you previously attempted. That's a bit antagonistic.

When you start accusing me of wanting to win the conversation that comes off a whole lot more antagonistic.

But, apology accepted.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wait, what? He's in clear violation of at least two tenants of the Oath. In fact, this scenario seems to be tailor designed to trial one of axioms of the oath in a literal fashion.

"Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren."

He literally stood aside and allowed someone to be literally swallowed.

If you boil down the "Oath of the Ancients" oath it is all about being a beacon of Hope: "kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.", "stand against the wickedness that would swallow it", "Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair.", "Let the light of your...courage shine forth in all your deeds."

This is a story of a "Oath of the Ancients" Paladin that has given in to despair and hopelessness, and cowardly stood aside to let another human being be literally swallowed, by his own admission to save his own skin, and you don't think he actually violated this oath????

I think the argument is something like: in a situation where the choice was either the NPC or you and the NPC and there was reasonable certainty no other method of escape exists then you should choose to save yourself instead of having you both die.

I agree with that and don't think such an action in such a scenario would break your oath. I don't agree that was the situation presented.

 

[Nagol]

The problem here is that the scenario is terrible.

But again, as I've stated many times, I'm not advocating for lawful stupid. I'm just saying that immediately going with surrender the innocent is not the ideal solution.

Absolutely not ideal. But in many ways potentially understandable.

If you don't think to negotiate right off the bat, you're done.
If you are used to the DM (or previous DM) being more...story oriented you go along with it waiting to see where it leads because dragon wants man, obvious plot hook.
If you have a keen sense of the relative places of a 7th level paladin and an adult dragon occupy, you might take the mugging simply because there's really nothing you can do to keep the NPC alive in any case. Breath weapons are like that. Shouting "Have at you" and having the dragon kill the man and rip half your hp away the same round doesn't help matters much. I suppose it salves your conscience in the better case when you beat some form of retreat after that. After all even though the dragon got what he wanted you didn't actually like give it to him. B for effort, F for effectiveness is better than two Fs I suppose. The worst case is the dragon get two entrees instead of one.

 

[Nagol]

When you and I have already discussed a point and then someone else replies and I make the same point to them and then you jump in with the same rebuttal you previously attempted. That's a bit antagonistic.

When you start accusing me of wanting to win the conversation that comes off a whole lot more antagonistic.

But, apology accepted.

Everyone wants to win a discussion: it's the Internet! I'll tone it down.

 

[FrogReaver]

Absolutely not ideal. But in many ways potentially understandable.

If you don't think to negotiate right off the bat, you're done.
If you are used to the DM (or previous DM) being more...story oriented you go along with it waiting to see where it leads because dragon wants man, obvious plot hook.
If you have a keen sense of the relative places of a 7th level paladin and an adult dragon occupy, you might take the mugging simply because there's really nothing you can do to keep the NPC alive in any case. Breath weapons are like that. Shouting "Have at you" and having the dragon kill the man and rip half your hp away the same round doesn't help matters much. I suppose it salves your conscience in the better case when you beat some form of retreat after that. After all even though the dragon got what he wanted you didn't actually like give it to him. B for effort, F for effectiveness is better than two Fs I suppose. The worst case is the dragon get two entrees instead of one.

I feel like you've shifted the discussion to "were the players actions understandable?". That's not been discussed yet. My vote is heck yes they were. The Paladin's though... he still didn't do a good thing. He still should have at least talked first and tried to get a better read on the situation.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Wait, what? He's in clear violation of at least two tenants of the Oath. In fact, this scenario seems to be tailor designed to trial one of axioms of the oath in a literal fashion.

"Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren."

He literally stood aside and allowed someone to be literally swallowed.

If you boil down the "Oath of the Ancients" oath it is all about being a beacon of Hope: "kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.", "stand against the wickedness that would swallow it", "Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair.", "Let the light of your...courage shine forth in all your deeds."

This is a story of a "Oath of the Ancients" Paladin that has given in to despair and hopelessness, and cowardly stood aside to let another human being be literally swallowed, by his own admission to save his own skin, and you don't think he actually violated this oath????

If you read those very tenets that you quoted in the context of saving the world itself, it is possible to understand the reasoning.