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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Wow. That's really all I can say. Wow.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

"Give me that man, and you can live. I hunger"

The paladin was cornered by a creature far more powerful than them.
No mention or hint of any sign of vulnerability is given.
The player said he did not want the character to die and wanted to continue the world saving quest.
The post said the GM expected a stare down but no indication that it would succeed or that anything made it likely to succeed in the eyes of the player - no established aversion or fear of staring contests by dragons.

So, yeah, this scene seems to be a agree or die proposition - especially to the player in the moment.

BTW, that to me is key.

The player in the moment, right as the scene resolved, after the actual play, descriptions etc were presents saw it as an "or die" offer as it was stated.

So, while we can imagine all sorts of other things, that is how it came across in the moment to the player.

The player failing to see whatever other possibility we might imagine and taking what seemed the best option is not the character failing his oath.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

Next time on r/rpghorrorstories...

EDIT: to put something actually productive in the post: you don't try to solve OOC disputes through IC means. We could be going around in circles over whether what the Paladin did was right or now, but ultimately it doesn't matter. That character only exists in the heads of OP's table. It's make-believe. The more important issue is that somewhere along the line there was a communication breakdown or a mismatch in expectations between the DM and one of the players. If it ends up that the player is genuinely upset, that isn't solved by continuing to pile crap on the player IC. Conversely, if OP is really unhappy with how things have gone at their table, that's also solved by talking with the player and figuring out a way forward before laying down the hand of god.

Because at the end of the day, it's a game, where everything's made up and the points don't matter. If somebody at the table isn't having fun, nothing else is important until that's solved.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Cliche, but applicable:

 

[FrogReaver]

"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.

Do I really need to specify a freaking timeline for you. Is this better. "Doing nothing after being confronted by the Dragon to preserve the life of an NPC fails multiple of his tenets". There you have it, no meaning change on my part and eliminates the opportunity by you to quibble to try and sidestep the point.

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.

Yea it's obvious alright. When you engage in conversation tactics like the one above then you've already decided the conversation is going to go nowhere.

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 agree. But the player was entirely unjustified in seeing the encounter in those terms (at least based on the information provided to us). That's where the issue lies. The player can miss whatever solution he misses, but the question for good gaming is was he justified in doing so?

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

I'm not sure what this means.

 

[Mort]

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.

That's not all that happened.

What happened, was a badly presented scenario by the DM that resulted in a poor showing from the player, who(at least as stated by the OP) believed he had no other choice.

I'm not in the habit of severely punishing a player or his character for my mistake.

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

It needs to be a learning experience for both the player and the DM. That's the point.

If all that happens is the DM going " you've fallen, no takebacks, MUHAHA I AM THE LAW" then neither has really learned anything from this experience.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not all that happened.

What happened, was a badly presented scenario by the DM that resulted in a poor showing from the player, who(at least as stated by the OP) believed her had no other choice.

I'm not in the habit of severely punishing a player or his character for my mistake.



It needs to be a learning experience for both the player and the DM. That's the point.

If all that happens is the DM going " you've fallen, no takebakes, MUHAHA I AM THE LAW" then neither has really learned anything from this experience.

Well.... I wouldn't say neither has learned anything. The player definitely learned what a bad DM is like.

 

[Mort]

Well.... I wouldn't say neither has learned anything. The player definitely learned what a bad DM is like.

See, I don't think this was a bad DM. The DM clearly had a cool scenario planned, and has a cool moment ready for the player. Done with a bit more finesse, this could have been an awesome encounter.

But the solution wasn't telegraphed near enough and there was no meeting of expectations as needs to be in this case.

The very fact that the DM pasted here for advice means he's willing to learn and improve

 

[FrogReaver]

"Give me that man, and you can live. I hunger"

The paladin was cornered by a creature far more powerful than them.
No mention or hint of any sign of vulnerability is given.
The player said he did not want the character to die and wanted to continue the world saving quest.

Good recap

The post said the GM expected a stare down but no indication that it would succeed or that anything made it likely to succeed in the eyes of the player - no established aversion or fear of staring contests by dragons.

The OP wasn't explicit.... but this was obviously the DM's expected success condition (or at least the start of a longer contest for success). In either case, you shouldn't be trying to minimize the significance of this part just so you can attempt to argue that it was a legitimate no win scenario.

So, yeah, this scene seems to be a agree or die proposition - especially to the player in the moment.

It only appears that way because the player never took any initiative to do anything except give up instantly.

BTW, that to me is key.

The player in the moment, right as the scene resolved, after the actual play, descriptions etc were presents saw it as an "or die" offer as it was stated.

Yep. I believe he did. I don't believe he used his available character tools to explore the scene any further to confirm that assumption. That means he had ample opportunity to learn his assumption was incorrect. Thus, IMO he wasn't justified

So, while we can imagine all sorts of other things, that is how it came across in the moment to the player.

The player failing to see whatever other possibility we might imagine and taking what seemed the best option is not the character failing his oath.

Maybe we see Oath's differently. If they are internal to the Paladin then he defines them and thus his perspective would be all that matters. But if they are viewed more as objective values then I think he did fail the oath. Maybe you are in the first camp?

 

[FrogReaver]

See, I don't think this was a bad DM. The DM clearly had a cool scenario planned, and has a cool moment ready for the player. Done with a bit more finesse, this could have been an awesome encounter.

But the solution wasn't telegraphed near enough and there was no meeting of expectations as needs to be in this case.

The very fact that the DM pasted here for advice means he's willing to learn and improve

You don't see someone doing what @Celebrim or yourself advocated for as a bad DM?