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

[Mort]

Nope. Big difference between what you are describing and what I described. In any case, "the greater good" argument is irrelevant as a whole. This is about the oath requiring that this paladin not let his light die out so that he can continue to be an example to others.

As I stated (much) earlier in the thread, the situation is poorly presented telegraphed - as such no real consequences to the character.

BUT

The character's conduct, as presented by the OP (so much may be being left out) is also pretty bad.

Boiled down scenario:

Dragon: Give me the man, I'm hungry!

Paladin: ok, here you go.

No bargaining, no attempt to sus out the situation. No attempt by the player to to look at the DM say " really? You have got to be kidding me!'

Sure, he preserved his own light but an example to others? Hardly.

Also:

Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.

I'd say his conduct is much harder to justify under this tennant.

Maybe there really was no choice, but "ok, here you go. ?!? Yuck, paladins should strive to do better!

 

[FrogReaver]

As you will see, it's an AGREEMENT entered into. There can be no agreement when one side is forced. That's why it's forced. If both sides were in an agreement, no force would be necessary and a deal could be made.

deal
/dēl/

verb

1. 
   distribute (cards) in an orderly rotation to players for a game or round.
   "the cards were dealt for the last hand"
   
   
   
2. 
   take part in commercial trading of a particular commodity.
   "directors were prohibited from dealing in the company's shares"
   
   noun
   1. 
      an agreement entered into by two or more parties for their mutual benefit, especially in a business or political context.
      "the band signed a major recording deal"

nice Attempt at moving the goal posts. Agreements can also be coerced. Please find one definition of agreement that says otherwise. I’ll accept any source.

 

[5ekyu]

Try what and fail? I think context is important here. Try to gather more information to determine if this is a no win-scenario or try to win the scenario.

In the first case failing that goal is fine as it's either going to leave other options on the table or it's going to push the situation closer to a no-win scenario. In either case the necessary information regarding the scenario will be had in order to justify the paladins actions.



Never. You keep trying to validate it as a no-win scenario until you've either reasonably validated it at as one or you find the winning solution.

An example of reasonable certainty that it's a no win scenario - the dragon starts a countdown and the countdown is right at expiring. The dragon noticeably gets more agitated when you respond with more talk than answering it's question, indicating that some unknown amount of talk will trigger the dragon to just kill you both.

Any of these outcomes would have reasonably validated the scenario as no-win (or at least as only having a rabit out of a hat style solution). It's at that step when acting for the greater good is desirable IMO.



I think you are not fully understanding what validation that it's a no-win scenario looks like. As long as that validation isn't there then it's not moral to do otherwise immoral acts just because you think a scenario might be no-win.



I don't think this section deserves a response.



Sounds like a good example so far.



Agreed. He still needs to reasonably validate it's a no-win scenario first.

The what-if scenario you appear to be fixated on is: "attempting to validate the situation as no-win is an action that could trigger the dragon to outright kill everyone." That's possible yes. So let me address that.

There are two important factors to morality, what did you do and what you know. Since there would be know way to know or validate that our attempt to validate the situation as no-win then doing so would not be immoral even if it resulted in the death of you and the NPC.

Also, speaking of validation, the paladin hadn't even validated that the dragon would actually let him live after giving him the NPC. If the Paladin had given the dragon the man and if the dragon came back and ate the Paladin as well, would we really be saying the Paladin did the most moral thing? The important point is that this was a real possibility and a possibility that weighs heavily in the attempt to reasonable validate the situation before acting.



I'm not sure what being heroic has to do with being moral. There's surely some overlap, but not

So, long story short, if I get this right, its immoral to not choose to die with the guy until you are "sure" (have validated) it's not possible to "win" (get that guy out) even if there is a risk of such efforts making things worse.

But there is a point st which it wont be immoral because you are sure it is a no-win, or else all this validation is smoke screen.

Well, the reported observation of the player seemed to indicate he had reached that conclusion based on the scdne as shown in the game, as opposed to the one-side partial view we have here.

Do you think we have more or less info than he did?

But on another take, how does this "effort yo vslidate" apply when we factor in the other quest?

Before we decide its moral to add to the risk of suicide-by-dragon, ought we not to validate the risk that brings to that whole-world-ending bit? If our move here is to be moral, it's not just moral locally but overall. That quest seems like a bigger moral failing, maybe a prior obligation etc.

How much fo we need to risk validate that risk against the risk here before we know?

So, again, I ask what is the standard, the moment we can declare "done" and make a choice without being immoral for not having risked one more step?

Is it "dont see any more ways out?"
Is it "think the risk is now too high for the gain?"

Because, it seems to me that player/character was at both of those.

They did not come out and go "yeah, was gonna talk but decided nah"

You can post here that it wasnt enough yet which is all fine and good and if the coach had called a screen last week instead of the run...

But, what is the point at which you view your "validator for morals" to be satisfied that doesnt come down to "when they (player or character) are convinced its do or fie" which to me it seems in that scene at that moment they were?

Or put another way...

If we had instead a list of 12 different "tried and fails" but Monday Morning armchairs find 7 more to try... aren't we at the same point?

There will always be more to try. Until the dragon fries us or let's us go.

Maybe the countdown dragon will stop at one? After all, he wouldn't waste time on a countdown if just killing us both was ok. The countdown shows how much he wants me to act - not that he is fed up.

Right?

 

[Mort]

So, long story short, if I get this right, its immoral to not choose to die with the guy until you are "sure" (have validated) it's not possible to "win" (get that guy out) even if there is a risk of such efforts making things worse.

But there is a point st which it wont be immoral because you are sure it is a no-win, or else all this validation is smoke screen.

Well, the reported observation of the player seemed to indicate he had reached that conclusion based on the scdne as shown in the game, as opposed to the one-side partial view we have here.

Do you think we have more or less info than he did?

But on another take, how does this "effort yo vslidate" apply when we factor in the other quest?

Before we decide its moral to add to the risk of suicide-by-dragon, ought we not to validate the risk that brings to that whole-world-ending bit? If our move here is to be moral, it's not just moral locally but overall. That quest seems like a bigger moral failing, maybe a prior obligation etc.

How much fo we need to risk validate that risk against the risk here before we know?

So, again, I ask what is the standard, the moment we can declare "done" and make a choice without being immoral for not having risked one more step?

Is it "dont see any more ways out?"
Is it "think the risk is now too high for the gain?"

Because, it seems to me that player/character was at both of those.

They did not come out and go "yeah, was gonna talk but decided nah"

You can post here that it wasnt enough yet which is all fine and good and if the coach had called a screen last week instead of the run...

But, what is the point at which you view your "validator for morals" to be satisfied that doesnt come down to "when they (player or character) are convinced its do or fie" which to me it seems in that scene at that moment they were?

Or put another way...

If we had instead a list of 12 different "tried and fails" but Monday Morning armchairs find 7 more to try... aren't we at the same point?

There will always be more to try. Until the dragon fries us or let's us go.

Maybe the countdown dragon will stop at one? After all, he wouldn't waste time on a countdown if just killing us both was ok. The countdown shows how much he wants me to act - not that he is fed up.

Right?

We don't know the full facts. But as presented nothing was attempted, not even a call of foul from the player. That just seems lacking.

 

[5ekyu]

As I stated (much) earlier in the thread, the situation is poorly presented telegraphed - as such no real consequences to the character.

BUT

The character's conduct, as presented by the OP (so much may be being left out) is also pretty bad.

Boiled down scenario:

Dragon: Give me the man, I'm hungry!

Paladin: ok, here you go.

No bargaining, no attempt to sus out the situation. No attempt by the player to to look at the DM say " really? You have got to be kidding me!'

Sure, he preserved his own light but an example to others? Hardly.

Also:

Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.

I'd say his conduct is much harder to justify under this tennant.

Maybe there really was no choice, but "ok, here you go. ?!? Yuck, paladins should strive to do better!

"Dragon: Give me the man, I'm hungry!"

Noticing the "and you can live" with its threat implied was dropped in your summary there. As was the cornered and heavily outgunned. As was the bigger quest...

Heck, seems like the whole bit the player did in gsme and the statement after about not wanting to have the character die and continue the world saving quest all gone.

Hmmm... wonder if it's really all that hard to see a chouce in a negative light if you toss out all the points in its favor.

 

[Mort]

"Dragon: Give me the man, I'm hungry!"

Noticing the "and you can live" with its threat implied was dropped in your summary there. As was the cornered and heavily outgunned. As was the bigger quest...

Heck, seems like the whole bit the player did in gsme and the statement after about not wanting to have the character die and continue the world saving quest all gone.

Hmmm... wonder if it's really all that hard to see a chouce in a negative light if you toss out all the points in its favor.

The "and you can live" is, mostly, blatantly obvious and known by anyone still debating this. But if it helps, sorry for the omission.

Are you honestly claiming that this is paladinly behavior?

Again the situation, as presented, was grossly unfair.

Doesn't change the fact that the player (through his character or otherwise) chose to not challenge it in any way.

 

[Maxperson]

nice Attempt at moving the goal posts. Agreements can also be coerced. Please find one definition of agreement that says otherwise. I’ll accept any source.

Agreements cannot be coerced. In such a situation, one side does not AGREE. They are forced to submit. There's a rather drastic difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreements cannot be coerced. In such a situation, one side does not AGREE. They are forced to submit. There's a rather drastic difference.

Then it should be easy for you to find a definition that makes this clear. But you can’t because none exist

 

[Maxperson]

Are you honestly claiming that this is paladinly behavior?

There isn't a set definition for that behavior and there hasn't been since 2e, and it was even debatable then. With paladins of various alignments in 3e and paladins of every alignment in 4e, and various oaths that encompass many alignments in 5e, his act CAN be paladinly behavior. That's why this thread has gone on for so long and with so many opinions.

 

[Maxperson]

Then it should be easy for you to find a definition that makes this clear. But you can’t because none exist

I already did. A deal requires agreement. There can be no agreement where coercion exists. Don't ask for dictionary definitions if you aren't prepared to accept them.