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

[Scott Christian]

- 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?

It's not about being classy, because I'm not trying to win an argument.
The OP asked what WE would do in his situation. I proposed world building, ret-con or having the paladin choose a different path. If that is too limiting to a group of roleplayers, then we should choose a different game; one more strategic or action oriented.
How in the world you can take my thoughts about player knowledge, character knowledge, and a situation that could be used to enhance the character arc, to make it out like I'm calling other players immature, I find hard to understand. My statement holds true, I don't think I've ever played with someone that couldn't just let it go or get behind the story.

 

[5ekyu]

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).

"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."

See, yes, there was nothing given yo us that indicates the plsyer saw this as a problem with the oath.

That means, to me, at a minimum the GM had not come to mutual understanding about that with the player. It could be eorse - might have been some prior stuff that led the player to see this as not an oath issue.

As I have ssid, at my tables I make sure the player and I are on some page- whether that means letting them know after their ranger would recognize tracks in the mud as those of such and such and that thars not normally found here or letting anyone eith a patton/chyrch/oath that a situation is hitting close to a parable or fable or other wsy they teach the doctrine.

The power of the oath and these challenges is not in ambush surprise gotchas where the player doesnt see the challenge yo the oath, but them seeing it and having to make the extra difficult choice.

Do you keep the faith, walk the tougher path, rtc requires you to know the faith.

 

[MoonSong]

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"?

For a paladin... it doesn't matter. A paladin shouldn't believe in no-win situations in the first place. A paladin shouldn't fear death. (Yes some oaths don't fit this, but these are more like other classes that piggyback onto the paladin chassis)

The answer is inexcusable. This paladin should fall. However, there also the fact that

THE DM PUT A FRIGGIN' DRAGON TWICE THE PALADIN LEVEL!!

That is a big no, no. If you are going to do something like that, you are better off writing fiction! What was OP thinking??!!

 

[happyhermit]

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.

With ethical dilemma's like the trolley problem, trying to find alternate solutions is usually considered dodging the question, because the dilemma and lack of options is the point. TTRPGs aren't like that.

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.

I don't think this is true, depending on what you mean by "willingly". For example, it's pretty clear that being coerced into doing evil is not OK ie; "Just following orders"

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.

Nope, you seem to be missing something.

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

I will reiterate; "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. "

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.

For the sake of argument, assume the player is acting in good faith (as was intended in the example), what is your response then? If the player is acting in bad faith that's another thing entirely and avoids the question.

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.

I was enjoying the discussion, but you keep strawmanning me, please lay off that. I never said I lacked faith in player's ability to RP their PCs, that has nothing to do with anything. I expressed my preferences in a non-confrontational way, and you don't seem to "get it" so you are being more or less disdainful and condescending about my views. Internet forums, yay!

 

[FrogReaver]

With ethical dilemma's like the trolley problem, trying to find alternate solutions is usually considered dodging the question, because the dilemma and lack of options is the point. TTRPGs aren't like that.



I don't think this is true, depending on what you mean by "willingly". For example, it's pretty clear that being coerced into doing evil is not OK ie; "Just following orders"



Nope, you seem to be missing something.



I will reiterate; "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. "



For the sake of argument, assume the player is acting in good faith (as was intended in the example), what is your response then? If the player is acting in bad faith that's another thing entirely and avoids the question.



I was enjoying the discussion, but you keep strawmanning me, please lay off that. I never said I lacked faith in player's ability to RP their PCs, that has nothing to do with anything. I expressed my preferences in a non-confrontational way, and you don't seem to "get it" so you are being more or less disdainful and condescending about my views. Internet forums, yay!

Some might say that's just Ovinomancer

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

You are conflating a bunch of different things into this one scenario so let's go through them.

1. What is Robbery?

"Robbery in Virginia (Va. Code §18.2-58) is the taking of property from another person by violence or intimidation with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. Robbery is a very serious charge in Virginia and is punished with 5 years up to life in prison."

What happened definitely meets the legal definition of robbery. So now, the criminal would still get charges pressed against him and it wouldn't matter whether I agreed to call it robbery or not, because the facts of the situation make it apparent that's what it was even if I don't call it that.

2. Was an agreement made during the robbery? Yes. You agreed to give the robber your wallet in exchange for not killing you.

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

Of course. The dictionary does tell us what words mean which is what the discussion of agreement and deal is ultimately about.

(Though it almost sounds like you were trying to set up a strawman just to knock it down. No one here believes or has advocated for a dictionary being a guide to morality)

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

Totally agree. It's just an agreement made under duress is still an agreement. It's just an agreement that we morally and legally may void after the threat is over because we as a society have agreed that we find agreements reached through intimidation to be immoral.

 

[MoonSong]

Totally agree. It's just an agreement made under duress is still an agreement. It's just an agreement that we morally and legally may void after the threat is over because we find agreements reached through intimidation to be immoral.

Yes, but I think paladins ought to be judged by a standard higher than what you would judge an average person in a courtroom.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Ummmm, The dragon wasn't threatening to reveal compromising or damaging information about the Paladin?????

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, but I think paladins ought to be judged by a standard higher than what you would judge an average person in a courtroom.

I tend to agree. Though I still don't think it rose to the level of external consequences. No losing abilities, no becoming an oath breaker etc. There's enough in his tenets that in the heat of the moment it's understandable having placed the wrong value on different parts of his tenets.

In case you've missed the points I've been arguing.

1. The DM was wrong to include the situation as he did
2. The Paladin did an immoral act by not attempting to validate that he was in a no-win scenario.
3. The Greater Good is a bad measuring stick of morality - but it does have it's place in validated no-win situations

 

[Maxperson]

For a paladin... it doesn't matter. A paladin shouldn't believe in no-win situations in the first place. A paladin shouldn't fear death.

Where does it say either of those things in any edition?