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

[5ekyu]

Sorry but my reading of the oaths says otherwise.

They do not require success in tasks, they require efforts and attempts. An oath of devotion doesnt lose his Paladino's for trying to save someone and failing.

In this case, the effort to save the victim failed when he got cornered by the dragon. Not finding a way to reverse that, not seeing another way out and choosing the best option for saving more light and the world - an option that allows for atonement and later reversal of the fortune... these are not violations of one's oath.

Failure to succeed is not violating your oath.
Missing some "clue" and seeing only a few options is not violating your oath.

The standard bring applied here seems to include not making mistakes, never missing clues, always solving the puzzles even if the risk seems way off base.

That is a pretty untenable standard.

A person's flawed perception of a situation doesn't matter.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

So to be clear, you take that to read that the GM actually means the player staring at the dragon would win the engagement? Really? That it doesnt risk both dying because it doesnt accept the offer?

I see it as what it said... this was what he expected. I see no reason to believe it would be successful.

 

[Nagol]

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

Do dragons go for that sort of thing in your experience? In mine they eat people who dare such things and don't look like they can back it up. And if the people look like they can back it up, they don't try to mug them in the street in the first place. This isn't a dragon secure in its power at its lair or going to a ritual sacrifice point for its latest morsel. It's a monster willing to pick out and mug a guy on the street with a wounded companion.

If there isn't something going on behind the scene, if the situation really is playing out as it appears, it's a really bad one for the PC. Taking a situation with a flustered player and saying "you didn't think of this action that maybe might have given you more data therefore you're bad and no longer the paladin you want to play" is an excellent way to guarantee fewer paladin atttempts.

 

[Celebrim]

What was the motivation of the DM again?

As best as I can tell it was to give the Paladin a Shining Moment of Awesome where he stares down and intimidates an adult dragon into backing off. Then to his surprise, the Paladin's player, unaware of the 'divine providence' of the 'creator' in this scenario, unabashedly surrendered to save his own life.

And now he's struggling to find a 'Plan B'.

My opinion, you let the guy replace his character mechanically with some other character of the same level based on how the player sees this story playing out. If he wants to play an Oathbreaker paladin, well that's fine. If he wants to convert to a Fighter 6-Warlock 1 and try to atone, that's fine too, albeit I would tell him that the path to Atonement might be very long and difficult. Or if he wants to play as a Paladin 6-Warlock 1 who has lost all of his Paladin class abilities, that would be fine as well (and I would secretly record this as a very positive sign in his road to atonement).

The idea is not to punish the player in the metagame, although in the game the character may be forsaken and have earned the name of 'Oathbreaker' or 'Coward' or whatever, but rather to facilitate further story as the consequence of this choice.

 

[Nagol]

What was the motivation of the DM again?

Unstated. Random encounter? Thought it's be a great scene to showcase the paladin's resolve? Imposisble to say.

 

[5ekyu]

And you know given therevis an ongoing mission to save the world, both dead seems a really bad way to get any of that light saving done.

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]

Sorry but my reading of the oaths says otherwise.

Then they are apparently more subjective than we thought!

They do not require success in tasks, they require efforts and attempts.

No one says this. Keeping your oath doesn't require success, but it does require more than immediately saying what's essentially a "take whatever you want dragon"

An oath of devotion doesn't lose his Paladino's for trying to save someone and failing.

No one has made that claim and especially not me. I firmly believe 1 Act doesn't make someone a fallen Paladin.

In this case, the effort to save the victim failed when he got cornered by the dragon. Not finding a way to reverse that, not seeing another way out and choosing the best option for saving more light and the world - an option that allows for atonement and later reversal of the fortune... these are not violations of one's oath.

IMO. You haven't failed to the NPC is dead. You can try to paint the victim as being no better than dead when he was cornered, but everything we have read from the OP and other posters in this thread tell's us there are potential outs to the situation. So IMO, the victim wasn't dead until the Paladin gave up and gave him to the dragon.

Failure to succeed is not violating your oath.
Missing some "clue" and seeing only a few options is not violating your oath.

Doing nothing to preserve the life of an NPC does fail multiple of his tenets.

The standard bring applied here seems to include not making mistakes, never missing clues, always solving the puzzles even if the risk seems way off base.

That is a pretty untenable standard.

Agreed. It's a good thing no one is advocating for that standard. Do you want to ask what the actual standard is?

 

[FrogReaver]

And you know given therevis an ongoing mission to save the world, both dead seems a really bad way to get any of that light saving done.

Is your argument that the paladin would have surely died if he didn't give into the dragons demands. If that's your take then that changes things, but I don't think that's your take.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do dragons go for that sort of thing in your experience? In mine they eat people who dare such things and don't look like they can back it up. And if the people look like they can back it up, they don't try to mug them in the street in the first place. This isn't a dragon secure in its power at its lair or going to a ritual sacrifice point for its latest morsel. It's a monster willing to pick out and mug a guy on the street with a wounded companion.

Dragons are very vain. They can be challenged to contests where they prove themselves superior to you IMO. Of course they may raise the stakes if you lose.

If there isn't something going on behind the scene, if the situation really is playing out as it appears, it's a really bad one for the PC. Taking a situation with a flustered player and saying "you didn't think of this action that maybe might have given you more data therefore you're bad and no longer the paladin you want to play" is an excellent way to guarantee fewer paladin atttempts.

I think most all of us have agreed it's a bad scenario. I don't think he should lose his powers or become an Oath breaker. I'm not sure what continually bringing that up to me when we agree on that point helps with.

 

[Nagol]

Dragons are very vain. They can be challenged to contests where they prove themselves superior to you IMO. Of course they may raise the stakes if you lose.



I think most all of us have agreed it's a bad scenario. I'm not sure what continually bringing that up to me when we agree on that point helps with.

Beacause although you say you agree you also say:

"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"

and

"Is your argument that the paladin would have surely died if he didn't give into the dragons demands. If that's your take then that changes things, but I don't think that's your take."

Yes I think the player rightfully thought the PC would surely die. It's that bad a situation for the PC.