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

[Lord of Nessus]

The Player and his character were given no reason to think that the dragon was open to further bargaining. Perhaps if the Paladin and the dragon had some kind of prior history where the Paladin knew how the dragon thought, it would've been reasonable for the Paladin to think that more bargaining was viable - but this was his first encounter with said dragon, and could only go on what he knew the stereotypical behavior of such would be - immediately cooperate or die. The Paladin, as far as he knew, had only two choices: 1) Give up the man and live himself, or 2) Don't give up the man, get attacked by the dragon, fight it, lose and die, and then the dragon still takes the man. Clearly the first choice is better than the second. There's a reason people hand over their wallets to muggers: if they don't, the mugger beats and/or kills them and still gets their wallet. The question was not "How can I win" but "How do I lose the least". If the DM wanted the Paladin to choose to bargain with the dragon, it was the DM's obligation to give the dragon a line of dialogue which clearly indicated that was an option. "Give me the man or die" is not such a line. The DM set up a situation where a win was possible, but only with knowledge the PC did not possess - that the dragon was more reasonable and cooperative than the typical evil dragon. (I'm curious as to how the DM intended the Paladin to satisfy the dragon in the winning scenario, given that the dragon was hungry - was the Paladin supposed to suggest an alternative meal? What if the PC doesn't know where one can be found - does he get penalized then, too?)

Now, should the Paladin feel bad about his choice? Sure. But he was (as far as he knew) in a no-win situation. If the Paladin fought the dragon (which he believed he would have to to save the man), the Paladin would die and not be able to complete the world-saving quest - which would doom everybody including the man he was trying to save. As Spock would say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

 

[Lord of Nessus]

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

Try any dictionary. The word for what you are describing is not "agreement" but "blackmail".

 

[Lord of Nessus]

But the belief that the Paladin accepting the man is going to die no matter what he does has to be justified both for us and for the Paladin. It's not enough to believe something, that belief must have justification.

... and your last sentence exonerates the Paladin - thank you - because the Paladin had no justification - none whatsoever - to believe that the dragon could be negotiated with or beaten in a fight.

 

[Lord of Nessus]

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.

- Ah, the old "If anybody disagrees with me or thinks a situation is unfair, they're immature" argument. So classy. Funny how people who are actually winning an argument never have to invoke this, eh?

 

[Hussar]

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

I guess that's where I get off the train. A dragon tells me give me the man or I'll kill you, that's a reasonably validated no-2in situation. The dragon can obviously kill me if it wants to. There's nothing stopping the dragon from killing me and the man. It's a no-win situation from the start.

Like was said, what's the magic number for determining this to be a no-win situation? What's "reasonable"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

So, then, you'd be okay with a DM that says, "Bob the Fighter, a dragon comes down and says "give me your prized Grandfather's sword or you die!" And then, when you give up the powerful magical sword, you'd understand it was for story reasons and you should just deal with it.

But then, the dragon shows back up and demands your armor. Then your money. Then your backup weapon, and on and on. It's all good, because story?

Hogwash. Crappy DMing isn't something that players just have to put up with. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

I do not see anything in this description of evrpent that would lead me to see this as violating an ancients oath.

From the description, To the player it seemed to be both die and forfeit quest or allow the dragon to claim its prize. It was a failed rescue not murder, and without suicide either.

What I fault the player for, in a neutral seat not knowing table rules, is not asking the GM for knowledge of "what would my oath and order consider right here?" as a means of making sure they were on the same page.

But that's not a code violation, that's player not spotting the trap scene.

One of the beautiful things about 5e is there being more than one type of paladin.

 

[Mort]

I do not see anything in this description of evrpent that would lead me to see this as violating an ancients oath.

From the description, To the player it seemed to be both die and forfeit quest or allow the dragon to claim its prize. It was a failed rescue not murder, and without suicide either.

What I fault the player for, in a neutral seat not knowing table rules, is not asking the GM for knowledge of "what would my oath and order consider right here?" as a means of making sure they were on the same page.

But that's not a code violation, that's player not spotting the trap scene.

One of the beautiful things about 5e is there being more than one type of paladin.

Right, there are more than one type of paladin. This one is an Ancients.

This isn't murder, but the player didn't seem to even acknowledge that there might be a problem with the action and his oath(though, again, we may not even have the full picture). The DM sure thought so, but considering the scenario he set up, he's not really a neutral (or even a good) arbiter here.

Where not actually disagreeing, I think the real problem was one of table miscommunication mor than anything else. The DM should not have set up a situation with such an opaque solution and the player should have paused and questioned the premise of the trap.

The DM was more in the wrong, IMO, as it's not generally good form for the player to question the premise of a DM scenario and not something a player should generally go to (and if they do that often it hints at other problems in the game that need addressing).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Then nothing is I guess.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, then, you'd be okay with a DM that says, "Bob the Fighter, a dragon comes down and says "give me your prized Grandfather's sword or you die!" And then, when you give up the powerful magical sword, you'd understand it was for story reasons and you should just deal with it.

But then, the dragon shows back up and demands your armor. Then your money. Then your backup weapon, and on and on. It's all good, because story?

Hogwash. Crappy DMing isn't something that players just have to put up with. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

I would be absolutely fine with it from a story perspective as long as the DM set it up correctly. Having a bully dragon that our group can't defeat constantly use as a target when we acquire new items would be fine. Again, it's part of the story. (And if you read my post I clearly stated I, as a DM, would NEVER do this without foreshadowing, clearly setup, and it being important to the story.)
But, I have never had a DM do something so absurd. I have had one that offered me a choice, melt my magic items to free a Great Eagle that was imprisoned by magic. I did so because I thought my character would make that sacrifice. If I were playing a different character, I may not.
So let's be clear. The OP did something wrong as a DM. I agree. But, the OP asked what we would do. My reply was to make it a world building exercise; exploring the paladin's religion to set things right. Or the paladin can choose to change. Or we can ret-con it and forget it ever happened. If those options are too much to ask for a group of roleplayers, then perhaps we switch games. Do some classic dungeon delves. It's all good in the end.