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

[Ovinomancer]

- 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.

Only the player has the authority to define their code - - the agreement they made with their god. I don't see anywhere in the rules that I, as DM, am the final arbiter of such, even in the sidebar where it recommends a discussion. I agree, you should always discuss things with your players so that you're on the same page as to understanding.

But, no, if you're going to make paladins adhere to an stringent external code of which you, as DM, are the only arbiter, then you owe more to the player that agrees to this than to any other player at the table. You've constrained their ability to play more than others, and that should only be done with commiserate compensation. So, what is it you do to make paladins better than other classes that don't have you as DM telling them how to roleplay properly?

 

[5ekyu]

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.

"A player's paladin should only fall if the player decides it should fall."

I agree but to me the player and the character making an informed choice to egregiously violate his oath is *to me as GM * the player deciding it should.

Note - the case in this thread did not hit the informed or the choice part of that imo.


"The worst I can do (and, honestly, it's pretty bad) is have the world treat them appropriate to their actions."

Yes but to me as GM that can include withholding powers etc chosen by the divine or power. That is stated in my games as part of the in-character "oaths" or rites. And at-table in the gm-player agreement for these classes. But that extreme includes willful and unrepentant and often repetitive.

" 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."

It certainly should be covered in the PHB references to player and GM working together to nail down the particulars of the oath, patron, worship etc for classes and characters that have them.

 

[Celebrim]

Only the player has the authority to define their code - - the agreement they made with their god. I don't see anywhere in the rules that I, as DM, am the final arbiter of such, even in the sidebar where it recommends a discussion. I agree, you should always discuss things with your players so that you're on the same page as to understanding.

Even if I agree with you, this is Session Zero stuff. Once both sides have a clear understanding and the code is defined, the player no longer is the arbiter of whether it's being kept.

I've got a Paladin and a Shaman in my current campaign that I'm running. Both have to live according to a code. Both had that code outlined in Session Zero. The Shaman actually does get to create their own code in my game, but once the bargain is made, I'm pretty much - in my capacity as the spirits that the Shaman is bargaining with - the one that decides if the bargain is being kept. This isn't a hypothetical for me.

But, no, if you're going to make paladins adhere to an stringent external code of which you, as DM, are the only arbiter, then you owe more to the player that agrees to this than to any other player at the table. You've constrained their ability to play more than others, and that should only be done with commiserate compensation. So, what is it you do to make paladins better than other classes that don't have you as DM telling them how to roleplay properly?

The fundamental problem with logic here is you assume no player would want to explore having to live up to an externally reviewable moral code as a thing of interest in and of itself, and what players are really interested in is mechanical advantages and that they'd only impose some code on themselves in exchange for some sweet mechanical advantage. All your logic makes the assumption that this is imposed unwilling on the player as some sort of handicap or punishment that they are enduring and it's not in fact part of the fun, because you just assume everyone would want to maximize their own freedom of action and maximize their mechanical advantages.

Have you ever considered that having your roleplay constrained by a moral code is a reason people want to play a Paladin and not something that they are all the time trying to rules lawyer their way out of? Have you ever considered that people might not consider it offensive to live a life where they assume that some higher power knows better and is wiser than they are, or that even if they don't in real life believe that they might at least want to explore that? Why are assuming that the aesthetic of play that is going on here has something to do with needing to have mechanical compensation for restrictions on how you play the character? Because that argument makes assumptions about why the game is fun, and leads to dysfunctional play where the paladin is all the time trying to break the spirit of the code that they are keeping.

The thing is that it seems like you offended by the idea that person's actions might be constrained by something other than their own volition. And while that is an interesting philosophical position, it's not one that in the context of the game we have to hold up as absolutely true.

What I owe the player is rich enjoyable story, which is why you might notice that my focus on this has always been to discuss with the player not what has just happened, but what happens next.

If a player says, "I want to play a character who is bound in the service of a deity and is trying to live out a moral code as some of moral paragon.", what I owe him is that experience he says he wants.

Everyone is familiar with the rule, "No evil characters.", enforced in the social contract of some games for various reasons, including that the players are morally offended by exploration of evil in play. What we are also learning is that there are some groups with a social contract, "No lawful characters", because they are morally offended by exploration of lawfulness in play.

(Yes, I understand that in 5e, as in my own game, there are 'oaths' for 'paladins' which allow you to play a non-lawful Paladin, but I don't want to also get into an argument what a non-lawful 'oath' would look like, and in any event oath taking is a rather lawful activity.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Even if I agree with you, this is Session Zero stuff. Once both sides have a clear understanding and the code is defined, the player no longer is the arbiter of whether it's being kept.

I've got a Paladin and a Shaman in my current campaign that I'm running. Both have to live according to a code. Both had that code outlined in Session Zero. The Shaman actually does get to create their own code in my game, but once the bargain is made, I'm pretty much - in my capacity as the spirits that the Shaman is bargaining with - the one that decides if the bargain is being kept. This isn't a hypothetical for me.



The fundamental problem with logic here is you assume no player would want to explore having to live up to an externally reviewable moral code as a thing of interest in and of itself, and what players are really interested in is mechanical advantages and that they'd only impose some code on themselves in exchange for some sweet mechanical advantage. All your logic makes the assumption that this is imposed unwilling on the player as some sort of handicap or punishment that they are enduring and it's not in fact part of the fun, because you just assume everyone would want to maximize their own freedom of action and maximize their mechanical advantages.

Have you ever considered that having your roleplay constrained by a moral code is a reason people want to play a Paladin and not something that they are all the time trying to rules lawyer their way out of? Have you ever considered that people might not consider it offensive to live a life where they assume that some higher power knows better and is wiser than they are, or that even if they don't in real life believe that they might at least want to explore that? Why are assuming that the aesthetic of play that is going on here has something to do with needing to have mechanical compensation for restrictions on how you play the character? Because that argument makes assumptions about why the game is fun, and leads to dysfunctional play where the paladin is all the time trying to break the spirit of the code that they are keeping.

The thing is that it seems like you offended by the idea that person's actions might be constrained by something other than their own volition. And while that is an interesting philosophical position, it's not one that in the context of the game we have to hold up as absolutely true.

What I owe the player is rich enjoyable story, which is why you might notice that my focus on this has always been to discuss with the player not what has just happened, but what happens next.

If a player says, "I want to play a character who is bound in the service of a deity and is trying to live out a moral code as some of moral paragon.", what I owe him is that experience he says he wants.

Everyone is familiar with the rule, "No evil characters.", enforced in the social contract of some games for various reasons, including that the players are morally offended by exploration of evil in play. What we are also learning is that there are some groups with a social contract, "No lawful characters", because they are morally offended by exploration of lawfulness in play.

(Yes, I understand that in 5e, as in my own game, there are 'oaths' for 'paladins' which allow you to play a non-lawful Paladin, but I don't want to also get into an argument what a non-lawful 'oath' would look like, and in any event oath taking is a rather lawful activity.)

No, not at all, you've gone wrong. It might be mechanical, but I'm also asking what you, as DM, will do for this character in game. What compensates having to deal with you, as DM, defining the confines of acceptable roleplaying for this character. Does the world treat them better? Are they automatically assumed to be heroes and treated as such? What advantage does living up to the code you, the DM, defines and arbitrates in play, grant the player?

You also mistake that it's possible to play a character that lives up to a code without the DM doing a thing at all. Instead, what you're saying, is that you think players exist that want to live up to a code that the DM tells them about and enforces in game alongside all of that DM's infinite dragons. It's not up to the player to define the code or to discover it in play or to find out what happens if that code is bent or broken, no, you say it's up to the DM. Sure, the player might have some input at the beginning, within your acceptable margins, of course, but after that it's you who decides what that code means, you that enforces it, you that determines when the line has been crossed and what the consequences are. This is an absolute category error that you seem to think that only if the DM enforces their own interpretation of a strict code can a player possibly live up to a code.

And, oath taking is not a lawful-only activity. Following rules is a trait of lawful societies, it's not exclusive, though. I can swear an oath of vengeance against my father's killers as a chaotic evil character and abide by that without suddenly becoming lawful. This is another of your personal views that you've mistaken for actuality.

 

[Celebrim]

No, not at all, you've gone wrong. It might be mechanical, but I'm also asking what you, as DM, will do for this character in game. What compensates having to deal with you, as DM, defining the confines of acceptable roleplaying for this character. Does the world treat them better? Are they automatically assumed to be heroes and treated as such? What advantage does living up to the code you, the DM, defines and arbitrates in play, grant the player?

This still feels to me like the wrong question, and it's followed up by really broad and vague questions. I mean, yes, Champions are assumed to be special, and if it is known that a player is a Champion, there will be an assumption that they are acting out the will of their deity. Whether that is actually 'compensation' or not will depend a very great deal on the local communities relationship to that deity.

You also mistake that it's possible to play a character that lives up to a code without the DM doing a thing at all.

Yes, but there is a categorical difference between having a personal code and having an external code, and the experience of living with the two is different. And if the character is in fact living up to the code, then the DM really doesn't have to do anything at all. And if the Oath is really just witnessed by the player, then really only what you have is a oath that represents a personal contract with yourself. And a contract that you make where you are the only party in the contract is very different than a contract you make where there is a second party in the contract.

Instead, what you're saying, is that you think players exist that want to live up to a code that the DM tells them about and enforces in game alongside all of that DM's infinite dragons.

I don't think that is true. I know that is true. For one thing, I'm one of those players that thinks that is fun. For another thing, I have a player know who by personality is pretty much not capable of playing a character except with a lawful mindset. Every character he plays ends up lawful, and while he gets teased about it by some of the other players who think he should be more flexible, he does make a really great Paladin.

I don't have to make this player put himself under external codes. He's going to do that all on his own regardless of the class he is playing.

This is an absolute category error that you seem to think that only if the DM enforces their own interpretation of a strict code can a player possibly live up to a code.

No, I think your still missing the core of what I'm saying here. Again, there is a categorical difference between a personal code and an oath sworn with yourself as the witness, and an external code where you call upon a second party as witness.

And further, you still seem to be in this mindset that this is all a metagame thing, with this being between a player and a DM. If someone in my game takes an Oath, and calls a deity like Aravar the Traveller as witness to that Oath, then Aravar the Traveller is the one that is judging whether that Oath is upheld. And I have to somehow put myself in the place of this being and decide how Aravar views the situation.

And, oath taking is not a lawful-only activity. Following rules is a trait of lawful societies, it's not exclusive, though. I can swear an oath of vengeance against my father's killers as a chaotic evil character and abide by that without suddenly becoming lawful.

Which is why I put my parenthetical side note at the end. In actuality, the Champion homebrew class in my game is vastly more flexible than even the 5e Paladin with respect to it's particulars of what it means to be what D&D traditionally calls a 'Paladin'. There is a very strong possibility that a player could ask to play a Champion of a deity or philosophy that I've never really thought about much in my game, and in that case there will be a long Session Zero session where we mutually hash out what the expected behavior of that Champion will be. But once that is decided, the deity and not the player character is the one that decides if those expectations are being met.

This is another of your personal views that you've mistaken for actuality.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you swear an oath of vengeance as a chaotic evil character, who is the witness you called to hear that oath, and what do you expect that witness to do? And why if you are chaotic evil would you bind yourself in that fashion? I mean I'm not saying you can't, but it does seem a little bit out of character. If you are swearing in such a way that you are the witness to the oath, then of course you get to decide how to keep that oath. I've never denied that chaotic evil doesn't exist, and can't swear oaths, but then considering that a chaotic evil character believes that there is no such thing as truth, and no external thing that by right ought to constrain them, pretty much every oath that they make is probably one they intend to break either by letter or by spirit.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yes, that was mentioned before, I think by you. The player made a mistake, whether through being new to the game or whatever. That lack of being skilled at the game, though, shouldn't be held against the player. When faced with a tough situation, people(including paladins) panic and often don't think of even easy solutions to things. That doesn't mean that the paladin willingly broke his oath, though.

 

[Nagol]

Yes, that was mentioned before, I think by you. The player made a mistake, whether through being new to the game or whatever. That lack of being skilled at the game, though, shouldn't be held against the player. When faced with a tough situation, people(including paladins) panic and often don't think of even easy solutions to things. That doesn't mean that the paladin willingly broke his oath, though.

I agree. I also don't think the oath forbids surrender.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

That's the way the OP was leaning, but the thread title indicates that the OP came here to hear advice and opinions as well.

You are not getting to save the world either way (and if your interpretation is correct, you are fallen no matter what).

Well, no. My interpretation does not allow for the paladin to fall if he surrenders the NPC. Being forced under pain of death to do something makes the act against the will of the paladin, and you have to willingly break the oath in order to fall.

 

[Maxperson]

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

From the PHB...

"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."

So an being forced against his will to surrender the NPC on pain of death would not qualify.

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.

So under this interpretation, it's impossible to force someone to do anything against his will except by physically moving that person's hands and body. That's just wrong. People get forced against their will through fear, intimidation and/or death threats to do all kinds of things all the time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This still feels to me like the wrong question, and it's followed up by really broad and vague questions. I mean, yes, Champions are assumed to be special, and if it is known that a player is a Champion, there will be an assumption that they are acting out the will of their deity. Whether that is actually 'compensation' or not will depend a very great deal on the local communities relationship to that deity.

So, then, no, no difference. They live by an external code, one that's divinely enforced (in the guise of whatever the DM says), and there's no difference. They aren't special. You referenced Cap earlier in the thread as a paragon, and I'll agree, but Cap gets lots and lots of perks for that. You're just providing the usual stuff but requiring that players roleplay to your requirements instead of theirs. There's absolutely no compensation for your direction of their character in your game set-up -- it's entirely one-sided.

And you think this is healthy?

Yes, but there is a categorical difference between having a personal code and having an external code, and the experience of living with the two is different. And if the character is in fact living up to the code, then the DM really doesn't have to do anything at all. And if the Oath is really just witnessed by the player, then really only what you have is a oath that represents a personal contract with yourself. And a contract that you make where you are the only party in the contract is very different than a contract you make where there is a second party in the contract.[/quote[
The only difference is in the recognition of others. Literally. Adhering to an external code is only different from a personal one in that others share your code and can expect behavior from you. In the real world, this is returned by exclusive access to whatever code organization's resources that's above and beyond normal people's. The actual effort needed to follow the code is no different -- your argument is specious on that aspect. Nor is there less nobility in a personal code than an external one, so, again, specious. Your argument really seems to boil down to "unless someone else judges your adherence to a code, you could cheat and no one would know." Sure, but isn't that up to the person?

Finally, the difference in the fiction of a PC in a fantasy game is much, much less. There's nothing special about the paladin's suite of powers that makes it stand out from other classes as more. Yet, because of your personal hangups, you're going to subject any player of a paladin in your game to stricter confines of what's allowable in roleplay. And, to be fair, you're more than welcome to do so in your games. That doesn't harm me and I wish you the most fun possible in doing so, provided your players have the exact same beliefs you do and as much fun. However, arguing in the open for how it should be rather than how you do it is a bit past where I'm happy to keep my opinions to myself.



I don't think that is true. I know that is true. For one thing, I'm one of those players that thinks that is fun. For another thing, I have a player know who by personality is pretty much not capable of playing a character except with a lawful mindset. Every character he plays ends up lawful, and while he gets teased about it by some of the other players who think he should be more flexible, he does make a really great Paladin.

I don't have to make this player put himself under external codes. He's going to do that all on his own regardless of the class he is playing.

No, I think your still missing the core of what I'm saying here. Again, there is a categorical difference between a personal code and an oath sworn with yourself as the witness, and an external code where you call upon a second party as witness.

The difference is that you get more from the second than the first, yet you're unable to explain what more you get from doing so. Swearing an oath to a second party openly is only done because of what you get in return -- even if that's personal. The difficulty in following either is the same. The results of breaking the open oath may not even be as bad as breaking your own personal oath to yourself.

And further, you still seem to be in this mindset that this is all a metagame thing, with this being between a player and a DM. If someone in my game takes an Oath, and calls a deity like Aravar the Traveller as witness to that Oath, then Aravar the Traveller is the one that is judging whether that Oath is upheld. And I have to somehow put myself in the place of this being and decide how Aravar views the situation.

Aravar the Traveller does not exist. There is no Aravar the Traveller observing the behavior of the PC and rendering judgement. It's all you, as DM. You may put a funny hat and voice on, and do some pretending, and everyone may get a kick out of it, but it's still you and the player. There's literally (<-- correct usage) no one else here, especially named Aravar the Traveller. This is a very bad take that often used to justify very bad behavior, although usually is phrased as "that's what my character would do!" I reject this absolutely.

You may provide evidence that Aravar the Traveller is a being that exists and renders independent judgement and I will reconsider.

Which is why I put my parenthetical side note at the end. In actuality, the Champion homebrew class in my game is vastly more flexible than even the 5e Paladin with respect to it's particulars of what it means to be what D&D traditionally calls a 'Paladin'. There is a very strong possibility that a player could ask to play a Champion of a deity or philosophy that I've never really thought about much in my game, and in that case there will be a long Session Zero session where we mutually hash out what the expected behavior of that Champion will be. But once that is decided, the deity and not the player character is the one that decides if those expectations are being met.

I'm sorry, do parenthesis render something non-commentable, or otherwise alter the meaning of something from the plain words? I don't follow what you think funny marks around your point render it somehow special.

That said, you mean YOU are the one deciding if those expectations are being met. And, since YOU have issues grasping an oath from a non-lawful being to a non-lawful being (fictional, of course, we're really talking about player and DM), then you'll probably create a lawful set of strictures, regardless of the fiction. I mean, can you conceive of a Champion that gets to define their own oath and if they've followed it because the entity they're championing couldn't be bothered to define a set of rules?

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you swear an oath of vengeance as a chaotic evil character, who is the witness you called to hear that oath, and what do you expect that witness to do? And why if you are chaotic evil would you bind yourself in that fashion? I mean I'm not saying you can't, but it does seem a little bit out of character. If you are swearing in such a way that you are the witness to the oath, then of course you get to decide how to keep that oath. I've never denied that chaotic evil doesn't exist, and can't swear oaths, but then considering that a chaotic evil character believes that there is no such thing as truth, and no external thing that by right ought to constrain them, pretty much every oath that they make is probably one they intend to break either by letter or by spirit.

Yeah, your inflexibility is very clear.