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

[Nagol]

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

I can't think of one, but unless the sentiment is specific to dragons, that is immaterial. Once the group saw demons terrorizing and hunting villagers. Had a paladin stepped forth to challenge them, they'd happily have had paladin soup. Not to mention the humanoid slave raiding parties, marauding undead, the lich, and a particular Wizard that was offended by previous unwitting actions of the group and took delight in tearing down those people the PCs helped.

None of which could be safely faced off initially as demonstrated by at least 2 PC deaths. All of which were dealt with in the end because the group found and exploited weaknesses rather than trying to defend the threatened/injured as they found them regardless of risk.

 

[MoonSong]

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

"Preserve your own light" can also be understood as "be an example of hope for others". A paladin that consciously handed a wounded person to a dragon no longer gets to inspire anybody. However, a martyr could.

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.

It is a situation where a deity should respond when the DM throws a dragon twice your level at you!

 

[Maxperson]

"Preserve your own light" can also be understood as "be an example of hope for others". A paladin that consciously handed a wounded person to a dragon no longer gets to inspire anybody. However, a martyr could.

That's just plain false. First, people understand that sort of horrible situation and forgiveness would abound. Second, only those present or close by and learned about it would even have to forgive. One city over and nobody would know, so the incident wouldn't even matter when it comes to inspiration.

It is a situation where a deity should respond when the DM throws a dragon twice your level at you!

Why? Not every situation is winnable. Sometimes you have to negotiate or run. The gods aren't obligated to come rescue you if you decide to suicide against a dragon.

 

[Nagol]

That's just plain false. First, people understand that sort of horrible situation and forgiveness would abound. Second, only those present or close by and learned about it would even have to forgive. One city over and nobody would know, so the incident wouldn't even matter when it comes to inspiration.



Why? Not every situation is winnable. Sometimes you have to negotiate or run. The gods aren't obligated to come rescue you if you decide to suicide against a dragon.

And if you can't run or negotiate, surrender is an option. In effect, faced with overwhelming force, the paladin surrendered.

 

[MoonSong]

None of which could be safely faced off initially as demonstrated by at least 2 PC deaths. All of which were dealt with in the end because the group found and exploited weaknesses rather than trying to defend the threatened/injured as they found them regardless of risk.

Ok, I can see how a paladin wouldn't fit in such campaign. Though having an omniscient diviner going out of the way to hurt everybody you save is just petty.

That's just plain false. First, people understand that sort of horrible situation and forgiveness would abound. Second, only those present or close by and learned about it would even have to forgive. One city over and nobody would know, so the incident wouldn't even matter when it comes to inspiration.

Well, we evidently have different interpretations of the oath.

Why? Not every situation is winnable. Sometimes you have to negotiate or run. The gods aren't obligated to come rescue you if you decide to suicide against a dragon.

They should if they are also going to punish you for deciding to preserve your life at the cost of someone else's(and we know this is the case since OP believes the paladin ought to fall). You are not getting to save the world either way (and if your interpretation is correct, you are fallen no matter what). Yes, not every situation will be winnable by combat, but there has to be a way to "win", otherwise you don't have much of a game.

 

[Nagol]

Ok, I can see how a paladin wouldn't fit in such campaign. Though having an omniscient diviner going out of the way to hurt everybody you save is just petty.

A paladin fit in that campaign just fine, thanks! She did not have "I must strive to protect the innocents at whatever risk to myself and my companions!" attitude. More like a "This is wrong. This must be stopped. We shall stop it, obviously. What will it take to accomplish that? How can we start and whom can we save first?"

He was a diviner, he wasn't omniscient, and the group had foiled not one but three of his major plans in the area and killed his lover in the process. They just didn't know he existed although clues to his involvement abounded. During the final faceoff the group, which still hadn't pieced together what was going on asked him "Why?" and he replied "BECAUSE OF ALL THIS! Youi started it and kept poking and poking!

 

[the Jester]

Not really. He has to live up to it or seek absolution. It's only for willful violations with no signs of repentance that the paladin will fall.

IDHMBIFOM at the moment. Is this your take, or is this stated in the rules?

This paladin had no choice, so the violation wasn't even willful. It's not like he walked up to the man and hacked him down of his own volition.

Strongly disagree. He absolutely had a choice. He chose to give up the dude to certain death rather than even attempting to find an alternative.

Being a paladin, at least traditionally, has meant holding oneself to the highest standards. This scenario sure ain't that. But in 5e, each oath is different, and the standards are different for each one. In my judgment, the tenets of the oath are what matter most here. Obviously, YMMV, and I view precedent from past editions as very weighty when I make this kind of call. Not everyone would agree with that take on things. And that's okay.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IDHMBIFOM at the moment. Is this your take, or is this stated in the rules?

Pretty much. In the sidebar on breaking your oath, it states that,

"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... 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 impertinent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another one, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option..."

So only in the case of a willful and unrepentant violation do mechanical penalties come into play.

A person being mugged (and I believe that is the case here) isn't willingly doing anything. They are being compelled via the threat of violence. The worst he should need to do is go to confession.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?"

Ooh, I like it, but you left something out. Let's add it back in and see if it looks differently:

"The man has also just discovered the cure for cancer and he and his wife are on the way to deliver the research to the world. If they both die, the research dies with them. Cancer may still be cured by someone else, but this cure will be lost."

Now, does that change anything at all? Is one life worth the cure for cancer?

Look, this was essentially a version of the trolley problem. There's not a right moral answer. It's all bad. I'd, perhaps, encourage the player to consider the action and what it means to their character -- ie, what the player wants to do about it, but the moment I, as DM, start deciding what should happen between this player and their character, I'm stepping across the line and playing their character for them. Now, I can have the world react, but altering the character is bad mojo. I can apply external NPC pressure, but I should not be in the business of changing anything on the PC's character sheet. This holds even outside needing to correct for the bad scenario presented.

A player's paladin should only fall if the player decides it should fall. The worst I can do (and, honestly, it's pretty bad) is have the world treat them appropriate to their actions. This archaic idea of what a paladin should be or that paladin actually have DM enforceable roleplaying levers is best left in older editions or in your table rules.

 

[Celebrim]

"A player's paladin should only fall if the player decides it should fall...This archaic idea of what a paladin should be or that paladin actually have DM enforceable roleplaying levers is best left in older editions or in your table rules."

- emphasis added

So what you are saying is that the actions of a character which is devoted to following some externally reviewable code, should never be externally reviewed because that would be offensive? That a character which devotes himself to serving some higher power and trusting the judgment of that higher power, ought to be offended if the higher power judges him?

Fundamentally I think we are having a real world alignment argument.

If a player's paladin should only fall if the player decides it should fall, then the Oath means only what the player acting through the character says that it means, and ultimately the player acting through the character is the source of all moral truth in the universe.

Which means all paladins in your universe are Chaotic Neutral, holding to a philosophy of extreme individualism, where all truth is relative, and where each person decides what is true for themselves.