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

[FrogReaver]

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.

You missed the request. Agreements don’t depend on no coercion. You can’t find 1 definition that says they do. You just blowing hot air today

 

[Maxperson]

You missed the request. Agreements don’t depend on no coercion. You can’t find 1 definition that says they do. You just blowing hot air today

If you don't know that an agreement requires both sides to agree on something, then I don't know what to tell you.

The paladin most certainly did not agree that the dragon should eat the NPC or that he should have to give the NPC to the dragon. No agreement existed.

 

[Oofta]

Back to the original question from @firstkyne, I think the rules are fairly clear. Maybe the PC made a mistake. Maybe they chose the lesser of two evils and didn't think of the option of talking their way out of it. But that's okay. As the rules say, even the most virtuous paladin is fallible.

So if that's the case the paladin needs to do penance.

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.​

The only scenario where the paladin becomes an oathbreaker (as the OP suggests) is if the PC doesn't repent

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.​

At this point whether or not I agree with it, it sounds like the DM has decided that the paladin broke their oath*. The DM needs to present the player with the options. Repent or become and oathbreaker.

*The fact that OP is also calling it murder when I don't recall anyone else considering it murder is also a bit off.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you don't know that an agreement requires both sides to agree on something, then I don't know what to tell you.

The paladin most certainly did not agree that the dragon should eat the NPC or that he should have to give the NPC to the dragon. No agreement existed.

He said okay and gave the npc to the dragon and didn’t get eaten himself in return. If that’s not an agreement then nothing is.

 

[Scott Christian]

After collecting myself, I will (hopefully more coherently) say that what you propose by making that one player the butt of the joke and getting the other players to laugh and throw tomatoes ranks among the top 5 most dickish things that the DM could possibly do in this situation.

There is a huge difference between meta-game player knowledge and character knowledge here. How is that not obvious?
People play D&D to tell a collective story. This is something that is simply part of the story. If a player (not character) is so hurt by the paladin/power circumstances, then I assume they are quite young. I, like almost everyone here, have played with hundreds of players. I can't even think of one that would have had hurt feelings over this.
Now, I've played with many that would have questioned the dragon's motive, etc. That would be fair. I for one, as a DM, would never make my player's choose something like that without immense foreshadowing and set-up. But, this DM did. So the player should understand it from a story perspective. Not, "What! I'm less powerful! That's not fair!" But again, I don't really know any players like that.

 

[Scott Christian]

So compound the initial lack of communication where the DM expected the player to read his mind by adding further lack of communication so the DM can have "fun" by tormenting the character and the player?

Sorry, but that's the kind of "fun" that leads to hurt feelings and fractured groups.

If the DM wants to impose consequences he needs to man up and say why.

Having "fun" at the expense of a player or character is the same as laughing at someone as opposed to with them - it's not a good idea.

If it was truly miscommunication, then ret-con the entire scenario. It was a dream...

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Are you seriously arguing that being mugged is the same thing as a deal or agreement?

Honestly, if someone stuck a gun in your face and said, "Give me your wallet," you'd hand over your wallet and walk away satisfied because you had a deal and both held up your end of the bargain? I'd love to see the mugger that tries that defense in court.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you seriously arguing that being mugged is the same thing as a deal or agreement?

Honestly, if someone stuck a gun in your face and said, "Give me your wallet," you'd hand over your wallet and walk away satisfied because you had a deal and both held up your end of the bargain? I'd love to see the mugger that tries that defense in court.

satisfaction has nothing to do with anything

 

[Fanaelialae]

satisfaction has nothing to do with anything

So if a mugger who robbed you argued in court that the two of you had an deal, you'd agree with him and not press charges?

A dictionary is not a guide to moral philosophy, nor is that its intended function.

There is a distinct difference between consenting to an agreement of one's own free will, and acquiescing to demands under duress.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First of all, I don't have a preference for simple, whatever you mean by that. Second of all, the Paladin had many options other than saying "Ok." At least one option was mentioned to result in both people surviving.

No, we're told that the DM intended other options, but that's different from what was apparent to the player. It would be like providing the trolley problem but not telling anyone there's a third option available where they can pick a third track with no one on it. You cannot hold someone accountable for not guessing a hidden option is available. The offer from a very powerful dragon that the paladin has no hope to defeat was leave and live or stay and die -- either way the NPC is eaten. Holding the player responsible for failing to guess that, this time, the powerful and lethal dragon could be stared down is not a valid position.

It's quite simple, I determine how my character feels, the GM determines the results. I might delude myself into thinking I am doing the right thing, as enumerable bad-guys in fiction and reality have done, but that doesn't mean I am still good. I might convince myself that I am still honouring a contract when I clearly am not. People are able to convince themselves, at least (especially) for a limited time, that they are doing "the right thing" even when they aren't. So like I said, it really depends on the nature of the oath in the "world", is it 100% dependent on the Paladin's feelings, ie; could one with the most good and pure of oaths do vile and evil things, as long as they are convinced it's right, or is there any degree of externality that will come into play.

To clarify even more, if the GM tells me my powers are wavering or gone, that doesn't tell me how I feel. I might feel a million different ways about it.

You've missed my point. For the DM to apply penalties for breaking the oath, the DM must determine if the paladin did it willingly or not. To do this, the DM must determine what the paladin is thinking and feeling. Only then can they apply the punishment. That you feel that you can maintain a different set of feelings and thinkings for the character is nice, but it's not true -- you've ceded part of this to the DM, and since their word determines reality in game, whatever you're doing is pretending inside pretending.

Of course a player can hold themselves to an oath.

You, very clearly, said that a player doing so without the DM enforcing it would be something you do not like in a game.

If a Paladin's oath was to protect the innocent and they spend 6 months killing babies, does the GM need to know how the Paladin feels, or is the oath going to be in jeopardy anyways. If the Paladin is convinced that killing them is the surest way to protect them from the evils of the world, and the oath is still secure, then that is a very particular kind of world.

Let's unpack this, because I think this gets to the heart of the disagreement. What the above says to me is that the player is intentionally acting in bad faith at the table and the DM should punish their character for it. This is backwards. Either you play with people that you expect will do their best or you do not. If the latter, then the problems aren't going to be solved in game. If the former, then this isn't going to happen at all, and, if it does, it warrants a table discussion rather than the DM choosing things for the character to pay.

If a player at my table wants to play a paladin, then I, as DM, need to trust that they're going to do that. If they break that trust, it's a table issue, not a paladin one.

No, I can "feel" like I am honourable or honouring something, when I am not.

As the DM can feel you've dishonored something when you haven't. Substituting the DM's judgement for your own doesn't improve the decision making capabilities. Either you're playing in good faith with the table or you aren't. If you are, then how you think your character is doing is good enough. If you aren't, the DM doing it for you isn't going to save anything.

I can determine what my character feels, the GM determines the results. What I really don't like and was referencing earlier, was the suggestion (and I'm not sure who all made it) to ask the player what they think should happen to their PC in-game, as a result, and then doing that. What you have posted lately seems less problematic for my preferences, and really just seems to reflect your view of the nature of the paladin's oath in the fictional world. You seem to view it as solely depending on the feelings of the Paladin in question, and therefore completely mutable, only limited by the credulity of their own mind. I could have fun playing in a world like that (not my favorite but it's fine), but if I feel like I break my oath and you ask me to determine what the consequences will be in-game... that sucks.

No. I think it's important what the player thinks the oath is. The character doesn't think. It's not real. The player is role-playing as if the paladin is real, but that means it's the player's choices animating the fiction. And, I have plenty of faith that players are more than capable of playing paladins according to their oaths in ways that are fufilling and make for a fun game. They don't need the DM riding herd on their choices to make sure that the DM's vision of the world comes true. The DM has infinite dragons for that.