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

[Nagol]

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.

As I typed at Hussar, I agree talking first would be better. It comes down to how much blame is warranted for the player missing a stratagem?

 

[Celebrim]

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...

Well, I don't agree at all, and in any event nothing in the Oath suggests that you get an exception to these rules to preserve your own life.

and don't think such an action in such a scenario would break your oath.

This is going to sound unavoidably confrontational, but what you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. In this situation, the Oath and not a person's consciousness and not logic and not anything else is the ultimate source of truth. The Oath represents an externally reviewable binding source of moral truth. You are not allowed to detract from it or add to it in any manner that would allow you to detract from it by way of a loophole. There is no exception whatsoever in the text that suggests the paladin is allowed to avoid hardship and unpleasantry or his own death ahead of the objective truth of the oath. There are no concessions to pragmatic concerns if being pragmatic directly violate the oath. That doesn't mean you have to be stupid - you certainly can be cunning, discerning, retreat when it's sensible or when you have nothing to defend or protect - but it does mean that you can't put anything above the plain language of the oath.

I don't agree that was the situation presented.

It doesn't matter whether it was the situation presented or not. What matters is that the Paladin cannot know whether it is the situation presented, and the Oath prevents him from treating this like a no win scenario because that would be giving in to despair, failing to be a beacon of hope, and failing to let courage shine forth in all his deeds. He doesn't have to be suicidal and seek out situations he can't win, and he doesn't have to face impossible odds with a headlong charge, but when he has to choose between despair and hope, between cowardice and courage - he absolutely has to choose hope and courage over despair and cowardice.

From the Paladin's perspective, what is the worst thing evil can do here? It isn't kill him. The worst thing evil can do is get him to violate his Oaths. So the logic is pretty simple:

a) I can make a bargain with evil. But not only does that violate my oath, but having induced me to violate my Oath, I am no better able to resist the dragon than before. If the dragon violates his end of the deal, and it's evil - breaking their word is what they do - then I'm certainly no more able to resist the Dragon having violated my Oath than I would be if I didn't. For all I know the Dragon is tempting me to violate my Oath so as to more easily kill me. So there is no surety that my life will be spared if I violate my Oath, and on top of that I will have lost something worth more than my life. So there is nothing at all to be gained in this path. It's all lose-lose.
b) I can stand firm and resist evil. If I am martyred valiantly defending what is right and good, it may be inspiring to others and they may be emboldened by the example of my life. And if I do not die, then I will have earned a great triumph. Either way, I will have preserved my Oath. So resisting no matter what happens is all win-win.

So this isn't even really much of a choice.

Sure, you could have an Oath that attaches a duty to protecting the person of the Oath maker that says something like, "If you can save no one else, save yourself." But this is not that sort of Oath.

 

[FrogReaver]

As I typed at Hussar, I agree talking first would be better. It comes down to how much blame is warranted for the player missing a stratagem?

All of it. He simply handed the NPC over. Nothing else. If he had tried to read the dragons intentions. If he would have tried to make it a counter offer, or played on it's vanity and challenged it to a contest then the player wouldn't be to blame if all that ended badly. But to just give up without trying... the player is to blame IMO.

Honestly I really like the idea of challenging the hungry dragon to a fasting contest. See if you or him can go without food. After praising him for his self restraint in not outright killing both you and the NPC of course

 

[Wiseblood]

New players and new DM’s need the latitude to make mistakes we made.

 

[5ekyu]

Really great... what passage in the OP tells us what the solution that "wins" is?

I see this " I had hoped he would stare it down with a bit of god-fuelled determination."

But that just says what he had hoped the charscter would have chosen.

It does not say there was a winning option.
And this is separate from whether or not it's a reasonable risk... given a failure there may still lead to both die - which is the bigger lose option.

Unlike the Kobayashi Maru this scenario had a correct answer. It wasn't a no win-scenario. The OP tells us as much.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I don't agree at all, and in any event nothing in the Oath suggests that you get an exception to these rules to preserve your own life.



This is going to sound unavoidably confrontational, but what you or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. In this situation, the Oath and not a person's consciousness and not logic and not anything else is the ultimate source of truth. The Oath represents an externally reviewable binding source of moral truth. You are not allowed to detract from it or add to it in any manner that would allow you to detract from it by way of a loophole. There is no exception whatsoever in the text that suggests the paladin is allowed to avoid hardship and unpleasantry or his own death ahead of the objective truth of the oath. There are no concessions to pragmatic concerns if being pragmatic directly violate the oath. That doesn't mean you have to be stupid - you certainly can be cunning, discerning, retreat when it's sensible or when you have nothing to defend or protect - but it does mean that you can't put anything above the plain language of the oath.



It doesn't matter whether it was the situation presented or not. What matters is that the Paladin cannot know whether it is the situation presented, and the Oath prevents him from treating this like a no win scenario because that would be giving in to despair, failing to be a beacon of hope, and failing to let courage shine forth in all his deeds. He doesn't have to be suicidal and seek out situations he can't win, and he doesn't have to face impossible odds with a headlong charge, but when he has to choose between despair and hope, between cowardice and courage - he absolutely has to choose hope and courage over despair and cowardice.

From the Paladin's perspective, what is the worst thing evil can do here? It isn't kill him. The worst thing evil can do is get him to violate his Oaths. So the logic is pretty simple:

a) I can make a bargain with evil. But not only does that violate my oath, but having induced me to violate my Oath, I am no better able to resist the dragon than before. If the dragon violates his end of the deal, and it's evil - breaking their word is what they do - then I'm certainly no more able to resist the Dragon having violated my Oath than I would be if I didn't. For all I know the Dragon is tempting me to violate my Oath so as to more easily kill me. So there is no surety that my life will be spared if I violate my Oath, and on top of that I will have lost something worth more than my life. So there is nothing at all to be gained in this path. It's all lose-lose.
b) I can stand firm and resist evil. If I am martyred valiantly defending what is right and good, it may be inspiring to others and they may be emboldened by the example of my life. And if I do not die, then I will have earned a great triumph. Either way, I will have preserved my Oath. So resisting no matter what happens is all win-win.

So this isn't even really much of a choice.

Sure, you could have an Oath that attaches a duty to protecting the person of the Oath maker that says something like, "If you can save no one else, save yourself." But this is not that sort of Oath.

The second and third tenets are pretty convincingly in favor of choosing to live when the choices are the npc or you and the npc.

"Shelter the Light. 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."

You are a life. You should stand against the forces that would render yourself barren.

"Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can't preserve it in the world"

If you die then the light has died in your heart.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really great... what passage in the OP tells us what the solution that "wins" is?

I see this " I had hoped he would stare it down with a bit of god-fuelled determination."

But that just says what he had hoped the charscter would have chosen.

It does not say there was a winning option.
And this is separate from whether or not it's a reasonable risk... given a failure there may still lead to both die - which is the bigger lose option.

While not outright stated, it seems like the most reasonable reading of that part of his post is that he is telling us his expected solution.

 

[Nagol]

<snip lots>

I completely agree with you. The player should have turned and confronted the dragon. Yet.

Because even though we've heard just the DM's side of the story, there very little mitigating circumstance presented that would allow a player to think the situation is survivable let alone winnable.

Faced with this this situation as a player, being forced to fall when the other alternative looked like death, I'd retire the character and if I returned to the table, would be playing something the DM can't screw over like that.

Either the DM meant it to be a screw-you encounter in which case there's no point in trying again or the DM screwed up and can't right the situation short of making it a screw-you, see above.

 

[Wiseblood]

What was the motivation of the DM again?

 

[FrogReaver]

What was the motivation of the DM again?

in starting the thread?