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

[FrogReaver]

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.

I think for first offense especially one the player actively disagrees with that's too much. I'd go with a dream or vision warning you of potential consequences if you continue to act as you did when you gave the NPC to the dragon.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Chaning my question and then saying yes isn't answering my question.

 

[Nagol]

Chaning my question and then saying yes isn't answering my question.

In what way did I change your question?

 

[FrogReaver]

In what way did I change your question?

By answering it as if I had asked about the players perspective when I did not.

 

[Nagol]

So if the PC would surely die, but the player did or did not think that that changes things, but if the player merely thought the situation presented would surely kill the PC it doesn't change things?

 

[FrogReaver]

So if the PC would surely die, but the player did or did not think that that changes things, but if the player merely thought the situation presented would surely kill the PC it doesn't change things?

Yes with one exception. If there was a reasonable belief that the dragon would surely kill the player if he didn't immediately hand over the NPC (even if such wasn't the case).

In this case if the player truly believed he would surely die in attempting anything else then his belief wasn't reasonable IMO. He had the opportunity to probe and attempt to validate his belief and options. He chose not to do that. So his belief is no better than willful ignorance IMO.

 

[Wiseblood]

I think they just dabble in paladinhood.
For six levels. What we’ve got here is a magic using warrior, no paladin.

When I think of a paladin (yes even oath of the ancients) I think of Luke Skywalker. So yeah this guy wasn’t cut out to be a paladin. No slight on him, I wouldn’t do it. Take his powers find out if he still wants to be a paladin, if not let him roll a new character.

Or don’t I got no skin in the game.

 

[Mort]

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.

But all of your "solutions" do punish the player in the metagame. They take away the character the player has built without any real discussion as to what the heck just happened.

What really needs to happen is a discussion with the player and DM re: expectations on playing a paladin. The DM and player MUST be on the same page here. This should be a learning experience as to these expectations. I don't think forcing a character change is the correct play, as it avoids a real discussion on, again, what the heck just happened.

 

[5ekyu]

Then they are apparently more subjective than we thought!



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"



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



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.



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



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

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

But he did not do nothing. He carried the NPC in an attempt to get away.
That failed. They got cornered.

So, it's obvious we will not agree whether or not that was enough to satisfy the ancients tenets given the world ending quest ongoing. I, myself feel that - absent other info - putting that at risk by not accepting the failure for now and choosing to accept the offer to survive himself- is less in keeping with his oath. Honestly, it might well lead to an omrn or exsmple of putting one's own pride before others, hubris, before a fall, etc.

But it seems clear here the player missed whatever awesome auto-win solution the OP made so obvious. it sure seems like he saw the options as die or live with the latter bring accepting the deal.

I myself do not failure against oaths, even failure to see other alternatives.

 

[Celebrim]

But all of your "solutions" do punish the player in the metagame. They take away the character the player has built without any real discussion as to what the heck just happened.

What really needs to happen is a discussion with the player and DM re: expectations on playing a paladin. The DM and player MUST be on the same page here. This should be a learning experience as to these expectations. I don't think forcing a character change is the correct play, as it avoids a real discussion on, again, what the heck just happened.

What the heck just happened is in game he broke his Oath and now he is no longer a Paladin. That's an in game call that doesn't require the GM and player to be on the same page. A player doesn't have to agree with me that his character is falling and is about to be in a lot of hurt after stepping into a pit with rusty spikes on the bottom.

Where he wants to go with the character from here is an appropriate metagame discussion, but one thing is for sure he is no longer a Oath of the Ancients Paladin. None of my proposed resolutions take away the character. At most they take away some mechanics while adding backstory. If the player thinks that the character would be terribly upset to find he's not an Oath of the Ancients Paladin, or if the player is actually upset, then I'd suggest channeling that upset into a great story of redemption. If the player thinks, "Wow. You have a really harsh standard you are holding Paladin's too and I don't think I want to be a Paladin if it is defined that way.", then that is also a good story I think.

And yes, that there is a learning experience is entirely the point.