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

[Nagol]

A man and his injured wife are walking down an alley when confronted by a group of armed guys. They demand he give her over, and say he can go if he does. Knowing she will die, his response is;

"Ok.", and he pushes her forward. Without even a "Sorry honey, but I have to save the world, you know how it is." No attempt at bargaining, intimidation, persuasion, appeal to a higher power, stalling until help arrives. Even for an average Joe this seems... . An average Joe wouldn't be expected to say "Take me instead" for instance, but to not try anything would be a tough one to explain to friends and family unless he claimed to be overwhelmed by fear.

Now, for someone who has sworn an oath that deals with courage, protection, standing up to evil, etc. in a world where gods exist, and that oath has literally granted them tangible magical abilities damn... that's hard to justify.

god: "Woah, you had to give her over to be killed and eaten? The monsters wouldn't even talk about it? That's rough but I'm sure you had absolutely no choice."
PC: "Well, no they did talk. They offered me a deal. I took it."
god: "Wait, what?"

First, it was not a deal it was a coercive demand. "Do this" is not a deal even if you accede, when it accompanied by explicit or implicit "or else".

Second, we only have a single side of the story and it is light on detail.

I don't think there is any argument that the player demonstrated, at best, unskilled play. Attempting at a minimum to negotiate or investigate would have been better play. Players exhibit a wide range of skill. Even a skilled player demonstrates a wide range of adroitness during play. Players are also often 'trained' to respond in certain ways based on the DMs they've had in the past and by previous behaviour of the current one.

Frankly, I would say the same about the DM's play in this instance as well despite it being the DM's side of the story.

 

[MoonSong]

And this is why many groups tend to not want paladins or the equivalent. Not because the players or PCs feel diminished or unworthy by their shining example, but because strategically, operationally, and tactically they cause problems and get people -- themselves and more importantly those around them -- killed without value.

Not all campaigns are the same, there's a place for paladins in many campaigns. I don't really expect a paladin to fit in the Mercenaries or Murder hobo campaigns.

Several people In the thread agree that the paladin should be considered a murderer or at a minimum an unindicted co-conspirator. I see the paladin as effectively a mugging victim.

I agree that the paladin shouldn't have been put in the situation in the first place. However under that situation, I expect paladins to remain brave and not to sell the innocent for their own life.

Which is why I don't play or like DMs that enforce lawful stupid paladins.

They only cause issues if you put them in an artificial straight jacket or constantly throw no-win no good option scenarios at them as "moral dilemmas".

Well, elaborating a bit on what I said before, under these circumstances I will still try to fight the dragon to protect the innocent - naturally, after exhausting other options, including OOC telling the DM "Are you aware that this is a character ending moment?"- . And after getting killed in battle I will then ask "Ok, what is my prize? Because you were obviously ready to declare my paladin fallen if I had chosen to give up the innocent so there was no way I could keep my character, and I liked my character. Since you went out of the way to take away my character I expect something better in return".

After being put through something like this, the minimum I could expect was to have the innocent survive, or at the very least having a free rise and coming back with a holy avenger, no make it two holy avengers. And failing that, to have my next character be special to the plot. Because the whole situation is bad DMing.

 

[Nagol]

Not all campaigns are the same, there's a place for paladins in many campaigns. I don't really expect a paladin to fit in the Mercenaries or Murder hobo campaigns.

<snip>

There's a place for paladins in an awful lot of campaigns. Paladins who believe "If I couldn't prevent a dragon from killing an innocent, how exactly was I to save the world from an even bigger menace?" fit in fewer. Because either the paladin never sees a superior threat attacking innocents or the paladin engages and gets himself and possibly his companions killed.

It's a great sentiment and it is good that media exists with plot armour and codes of behaviour/writing conduct where it can be explored. D&D tends to have neither.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A man and his injured wife are walking down an alley when confronted by a group of armed guys. They demand he give her over, and say he can go if he does. Knowing she will die, his response is;

"Ok.", and he pushes her forward. Without even a "Sorry honey, but I have to save the world, you know how it is." No attempt at bargaining, intimidation, persuasion, appeal to a higher power, stalling until help arrives. Even for an average Joe this seems... . An average Joe wouldn't be expected to say "Take me instead" for instance, but to not try anything would be a tough one to explain to friends and family unless he claimed to be overwhelmed by fear.

Now, for someone who has sworn an oath that deals with courage, protection, standing up to evil, etc. in a world where gods exist, and that oath has literally granted them tangible magical abilities damn... that's hard to justify.

god: "Woah, you had to give her over to be killed and eaten? The monsters wouldn't even talk about it? That's rough but I'm sure you had absolutely no choice."
PC: "Well, no they did talk. They offered me a deal. I took it."
god: "Wait, what?"

I don't think that scenario bears much resemblance to the one in the OP. The one I posted, quoted below, is far more analogous in my opinion.

As I see it, this is equivalent to a police officer carrying a wounded citizen, and suddenly a tank rolls up and demands that the officer leave the man or die. The officer has sworn an oath to serve and protect, but he also knows that a nuclear bomb is going to go off soon and he's one of the few people who has a chance to stop it.

Personally, I could easily see that "Ok" being said through gritted teeth and out of character, because the player is furious with the DM for (at least from the player's perspective) abusing their power and putting them in a no-win scenario that wrecks the character (death or dishonor). Admittedly, that's pure supposition. The point is, we don't know the context. Therefore, I choose to focus on the facts we do know.

1) The character had 6 levels as an oath of ancients paladin, and one level of warlock.
2) The character was carrying an injured NPC when he was cornered by an adult dragon and given an ultimatum between death and handing the NPC over to be eaten.
3) The player acquiesced to the demand because they didn't want their character to die.
4) The characters are trying to prevent the end of the world. This was also given as a reason for why the player and/or character agreed to hand over the NPC.
5) The DM had planned for the character to stare down the dragon. What the outcome of that would have been, however, was left unstated.

Those are the facts as they have been communicated to us. Unless I overlooked a fact, anything else is mere conjecture.

Don't get me wrong, it's generally fine to come up with what-if scenarios and debate them. This is the internet after all. That said, it is relevant to keep in mind when one is delving beyond the scope of the facts as they are known.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree that the paladin shouldn't have been put in the situation in the first place. However under that situation, I expect paladins to remain brave and not to sell the innocent for their own life.

Even though giving up his life would have been a willful violation of his oath?

 

[MoonSong]

Even though giving up his life would have been a willful violation of his oath?

And so is cowardly throwing someone else under the bus so you can live. At least fighting a fight you know you can't win can hopefully inspire others.

This is a no win situation no matter how you see it, but the morally good answer is to fight to preserve life. If you die doing it, you haven't failed morally. If anything is the failure of a higher power. (IC is a failure of the deity that didn't respond to the display of devotion and hope the paladin made. OOC is a failure of the DM for putting a dragon able to TPK a full party of twice the paladins level at him! )

 

[5ekyu]

Because you are focusing on the wrong element of the scenario. The moral failing of the Paladin is that they entered in to the agreement. They put someone else's life ahead of their own, and allowed someone else to die in their stead with no agreement from that person. As someone else put it, "A wounded man, a dragon, and a paladin took a vote on which would be eaten."

The paladin didn't resist evil. The paladin didn't even try to negotiate the terms - for example offering his own life in the man's stead. Everything about the paladin's philosophy screams utilitarian self-centeredness.

It's not that the paladin is required to throw his life away. He doesn't have to jump into a river to try to save a drowning man while he's wearing platemail, or jump off a cliff in the hope a miracle will happen. But he does have to resist evil and not enter into a bargain with it.

I've already in this thread given what I thought the equivalent scenarios are.

Steve Rogers would not have stood by and done nothing. Arnaud Beltram would not have stood by and done nothing.

"They put someone else's life ahead of their own, and allowed someone else to die in their stead with no agreement from that person. "

I would consider this valid as a depiction if the offer made was "one of you may live, the other dies. Choose."

But that wasnt the case.

There was no offer of letting the injured man live. Not one.

Could a smarter more skillful player maybe have worked the scene better, argued force better deal and succeeded without just getting them both killed? Maybe. We only know the comment ascribed to the player put it in terms of life and quest.

Failing to solve the puzzle scene the GM provides is not a moral failing.

 

[MoonSong]

There's a place for paladins in an awful lot of campaigns. Paladins who believe "If I couldn't prevent a dragon from killing an innocent, how exactly was I to save the world from an even bigger menace?" fit in fewer. Because either the paladin never sees a superior threat attacking innocents or the paladin engages and gets himself and possibly his companions killed.

It's a great sentiment and it is good that media exists with plot armour and codes of behaviour/writing conduct where it can be explored. D&D tends to have neither.

In how many campaigns a paladin ends up alone and cornered by a dragon of twice his level?

 

[Fanaelialae]

In how many campaigns a paladin ends up alone and cornered by a dragon of twice his level?

I think that depends on how sadistic your GM is.

 

[Maxperson]

And so is cowardly throwing someone else under the bus so you can live. At least fighting a fight you know you can't win can hopefully inspire others.

The paladin has two choices.

1. Unwillingly break the oath and let the NPC die, living to be able to fulfill all of his oaths as he lives his life. Further aiding countless others.

2. Willingly break his oath and die an unrepentant oathbreaker. Lose his paladinhood in the process. Fail to save the NPC anyway, and at the same time, fail to save those countless others that he could save.

It's an easy choice to make.

This is a no win situation no matter how you see it, but the morally good answer is to fight to preserve life.

Correct. The morally good answer is to preserve your own life and live on to save countless others.

If you die doing it, you haven't failed morally. If anything is the failure of a higher power. (IC is a failure of the deity that didn't respond to the display of devotion and hope the paladin made. OOC is a failure of the DM for putting a dragon able to TPK a full party of twice the paladins level at him! )

D&D gods aren't there to step in whenever the paladin(or cleric) needs a safety net. I don't see this situation as one where the god would or should respond. MAYBE if the NPC was important to the god in some way, but not otherwise.