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

[5ekyu]

No, it just required him to follow his Oath blindly even if he couldn't see how it could possibly lead to a good result, and even if it didn't lead to a good result.

Everything else about the scenario is speculation. We don't know if it was set up by the DM or by the actions of the PC. We don't know exactly how he planned to run it. We don't know what the session zero looked like. We don't know whether reasonable expectations were set before hand. We don't know what clues happened. We don't know that the OP made mistakes. All we know is what happened in game.

Actually, to be clear, unless I missed it, all we know is what one side of an apparent incident claims. Lacking both sides at least, claiming we know what happened in the game is rather overstating things.

 

[Nagol]

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.



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.

The player learned not to take a class the DM can screw with.

 

[Nagol]

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

Depends on what advice is sought, doesn't it?

The DM in the OP seeking mechanical advice on handling a fall. and some general advice on punishment level.

 

[Imaculata]

Yeah, actually. I mean, I want to preface this by saying I'm not a fan of the gotcha setup in the OP or the mischaracterization of the "Paladin's" response as murder... but the rest of the OP seems like you're trying to work with the player to turn this into a satisfying story beat and I am genuinely curious about how it's gonna work out. Between the two of you, a ball was dropped and you're trying to pick it up and run with it... and I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at the people telling you to rub your player's nose in it.

I don't feel this was a gotcha setup. The alternative is that the dragon simply kills the paladin. But to have the evil creature make an ultimatum that allows the pc to escape, could be seen as an act of mercy on behalf of the DM.

But my first instinct would also be to not punish the player for making a choice. Even if it was a morally dubious choice in my opinion. Instead, simply explore what this means to people around the paladin. Will word get out of his deed?

 

[Hussar]

OTOH, what deed? He was trying to rescue someone, carrying him on his back, and the dragon popped up and said, "Gimme that" with a strong implication of "or die" in the air.

I know others have tried to reframe the situation so that it starts with the dragon appearing, but, obviously, there was stuff going on before hand. Why was the paladin lugging this guy on his back? From what event and situation? Was the paladin freshly rested or had he blown his last smite in the encounter and was dragging a survivor away?

There are a million questions that haven't been answered. But, wow, folks sure are quick to jump on the "You suck" train for this poor player. And folks wonder why I have such poor opinions of DM's.

Like I've said earlier, I'd put this in the player's court. Does he want to make an issue of it or not. If he does, run with it. If not, then let it go.

 

[DammitVictor]

Can't really call the dragon's offer an "act of mercy" on the DM's behalf.

Who put the dragon there?

 

[Leatherhead]

Here is what the books say about what to do when a Paladin breaks their Oath.

Which is the only "crime" that this Paladin committed with this act.

BREAKING YOUR OATH

A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible. Sometimes the right path proves too demanding, sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to transgress his or her oath.

A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.

If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

I know there is entirely too much heat going on about if this was a fair play, and how IRL ethics apply to a game world, but I'm going to drop a different kind of hot take here:

Paladin Oaths are designed to be impossible to live with. Meaning there is a high probability that the Paladin will either break the Oath or die trying to uphold it. Even the Oath of Conquest hits this mark with it's "Might Makes Right" mentality, which will ensure that the Paladin who swore it will die upholding it some day.

As for why? You could argue that is for the sake of drama, or maybe a dark social commentary on how to brainwash zealots by having them die for their beliefs or controlling the methods of their absolution. Either way, it's an important thing to realize when talking about Paladins.

 

[Wiseblood]

Here is what the books say about what to do when a Paladin breaks their Oath.

Which is the only "crime" that this Paladin committed with this act.


I know there is entirely too much heat going on about if this was a fair play, and how IRL ethics apply to a game world, but I'm going to drop a different kind of hot take here:

Paladin Oaths are designed to be impossible to live with. Meaning there is a high probability that the Paladin will either break the Oath or die trying to uphold it. Even the Oath of Conquest hits this mark with it's "Might Makes Right" mentality, which will ensure that the Paladin who swore it will die upholding it some day.

As for why? You could argue that is for the sake of drama, or maybe a dark social commentary on how to brainwash zealots by having them die for their beliefs or controlling the methods of their absolution. Either way, it's an important thing to realize when talking about Paladins.

Or perhaps it was, “you’re getting some really really powerful and awesome abilities, here are the drawbacks.”

 

[Nagol]

Or perhaps it was, “you’re getting some really really powerful and awesome abilities, here are the drawbacks.”

That certainly used to be the case in early editions. Now, pretty much all the classes are moderately well balanced combat-wise and while paladin has some abilities in other areas, it is by no means the leader in them like the bard.

Now it more like "You want these specific abilities that are different but mostly equal? Here are some drawbacks others don't have."

 

[Nagol]

I don't feel this was a gotcha setup. The alternative is that the dragon simply kills the paladin. But to have the evil creature make an ultimatum that allows the pc to escape, could be seen as an act of mercy on behalf of the DM.

But my first instinct would also be to not punish the player for making a choice. Even if it was a morally dubious choice in my opinion. Instead, simply explore what this means to people around the paladin. Will word get out of his deed?

It's not an act of mercy if the party taking it is punished for taking. It's an act of cruelty then.