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

[ClaytonCross]

So stripped of flowery language:

1. Be kind, mercifull and forgiving. Through these acts, inspire hope in others.

2. Stand against evil and those that would do evil. Protect life.

3. Have fun and spread joy ( definitely different from oath of devotion here, a hedonist paladin)

4. Show courage in all things.

So in this scenario (leaving aside, for the moment, the merit of the scenario) the paladin very clearly violated tenants 2 and 4 of his oath. He very well may be in divine hot water.

Next: while I don't love the scenario, as presented it reads very much - heads I win, tails you lose for the paladin - I like the players response even less.

It was, basically, "ok, here you go." There should have been some attempt at deflection and resolution other than death of the victim (I realize the player had little to go on).

At the very least the player should have broken character and said something like "seriously? A no win?" And the DM could have engaged in a conversation re: expectations.

Ya, "heads I win, tails you lose for the paladin" I kind of feel like the Player is being judged for wanting to keep playing his character as stated by the OP:

The player admitted, 'I wanted to live'. He figured he should live to fight another day (and continue on the world-saving adventure the party are part way through).

… This was not a character decision… this was a player decision to keep their character. On one hand that's meta gaming and on the other its very clear that the player believes the GM will kill his character. I am not against GMs making that clear but I have played under hostile GMs that would hunt my characters for the amusement of having power over me as a player. I am NOT saying this is a hostile situation, only that I understand the fear.

I don't want to punish the player so much that he drops out of the game, but I think there have to be repercussions (ours is not a slapstick murderhobo game).

This is a weird statement to me, because their are no murder hobo player actions here, the player is being defensive and the lowest adult dragon is CR13 meaning it can one shot the lvl 8 Player Character and the NPC in the same turn. …. without question. Bravery is fighting while your afraid, yes but its also keeping your cool in extreme danger. If the Paladin lets the dragon take the NPC then regroups with the plan to pursue the dragon when he has a chance to defeat it with the parties help, then he was brave to keep his cool and come up with a plan to defeat the dragon at a later date. On the other hand, if he just wiped he hands said, well glad I will never see that dragon again ran off never telling his party with no intent to stop the protect life from further actions of the dragon... then he is breaking the oath of ancients. If he intends to fight the dragon later and the party says "no way"... then he is still not breaking the oath but as a player not letting roleplay justify conflict at the table... which I try to consider as a player and try to get my players to consider when I GM.

So before we judge the actions of the player I think its fair to look at the intent of the player and the GM... This murderhobo reference seems a bit anti player because its out of place but I can't say because I don't have any background.

He is 7th level with a level of warlock (! I know...)

Again, this by the GMs admission seems to imply some GM frustration with the players character build. I have actually had a GM agree to a player choice to avoid debating it but then kill my character because they did not like choice at their table. Again, I am not saying that's what is happening here. However, I do feel like there is history before this impacting the desire to "punish the player" as the OP said.

How would you handle this. If he becomes an oathbreaker, does that replace his previous paladin levels, so he becomes a 7th level oathbreaker?

I think we have to consider if the problem is between the Player choosing to keep their character alive in order to keep playing it over roleplaying the class or if the this is a difference of play style between the player and GM in the meta that has come to conflict in the game. It could be either or both and I think as others have said, the first thing is for the GM to talk to the player. Punishing the player for wanting to keep playing their character is why I left a game myself. So if the GM does not want to lose the player but wants to put characters in no win situations, then the GM could have mentioned the possible consequence of not fighting before the player made their final call or if they GM really hates the character design then the should work that out IRL not in the game. At the same token, the player could recognize the divergence from the Oath of Ancients and completely except judgement as long as they can keep their oath since it was likely their goal to continue to be able to play that character. Changing them to an Oath Breaker as punishment would be the same as killing the character in that case since the GM is taking away how the player chose to play and making it the GMs choice.

 

[DammitVictor]

I feel like the OP keeps "admitting" that they're the one who screwed up here, but just isn't getting the fact this means their player isn't at fault and that the player/PC doesn't need to be punished for anything when they're not the ones who did anything wrong.

The player did not do anything wrong, and the player character did not do anything wrong. There isn't any practical, rational ethical system that agrees with their expectations out of Saturday morning cartoons. The player and the PC made the best possible decision in the situation they were presented, and the decision that every real world knightly order would have encouraged their own members to make.

"What's the most appropriate way to punish someone else for my failure?" isn't a good look on anyone. You expected the player to read your mind, and the fact that he didn't is your failure, not his. Stop thinking about how to punish him and start thinking about how to do better-- you do better-- in the future.

If you want nuanced moral decisions where the good guys don't always get to rescue the hostage, you don't get to punish them for failing when you set them up to fail. And if you want the kind of childish, simplistic morality that posters on this thread are demanding, you don't put your player characters into these kinds of situations in the first place.

 

[S'mon]

Depends on the oath, the PC's Alignment, the PC's god's alignment...

AFAICS in 5e you can have neutral & evil Paladins who could do this within their oath, though you could also have a Judge Dredd LN Paladin who certainly would defend helpless citizens to the death.

Ultimately the GM has to decide how their world works. I wouldn't necessarily go for what is most fun for the player in the moment - eg PC death is rarely fun, but the possibility of it makes for a better game IMO. I could see the Paladin losing their powers 1e-style, or just suffering social repercussions, or even being sought out by a dark power and becoming an Oathbreaker.

Edit: I have to say, if I were playing my LG Oath of the Ancients Tanuki Paladin of Amaterasu, there is no way in Hell I would have done what that PC did, and his action falls far short of what I'd expect from a fellow Paladin! He certainly deserves contempt IMO. We had a similar situation at the start of that campaign where our massively outmatched 1st level PCs confronted the BBEG and his minions to defend a peasant village; knowing we would die but still standing up for what was right - and with the enemy unsure of our capability, we were able to negotiate a partial solution. The PC ought to have done the same.
But it would be up to Amaterasu how she dealt with it; I am but her humble servant.

Edit 2: I disagree strongly with suggestions that PCs should not be put in difficult/impossible situations. Hard choices are where drama comes from.

 

[S'mon]

And, as far as "hope" goes, please, Pemerton, RTFM. This is 5e. This is NOT how paladins were in other editions. The oaths of different paladins are DIFFERENT. There is no one size fits all answer here.

I'm pretty sure 5e leaves it open - you can play in various styles. But Pemerton is right that Paladins are a poor fit for Conanesque swords & sorcery.

 

[S'mon]

The very fact that the dragon didn't attack immediately, but entered into negotiation/intimidation, should have indicated to the player character that there was room for negotiation. The PC didn't commit murder, but they were extremely lame. They acted like a cowardly Rogue not a brave Paladin. If they didn't want to follow their Oath they shouldn't have taken it, and the player should have chosen a different class.

 

[DammitVictor]

Edit 2: I disagree strongly with suggestions that PCs should not be put in difficult/impossible situations. Hard choices are where drama comes from.

Hard choices are fine, but they only work when you they're actually real choices and players have to live with the consequences of making them-- when players have to wonder if they did the right thing, because the gods are silent.

Games with hard choices and tough consequences are incompatible with the entire premise of this thread.

 

[S'mon]

Hard choices are fine, but they only work when you they're actually real choices and players have to live with the consequences of making them-- when players have to wonder if they did the right thing, because the gods are silent.

Games with hard choices and tough consequences are incompatible with the entire premise of this thread.

I discussed how as a Pal-1 we faced the same choice as this Pal-7 did!! Whether to stand up to overwhelmingly superior force to defend the innocent. I disagree that 'the gods must be silent' for a choice to be hard in the moment.

Edit: However if the choice is between 'maybe be eaten by dragon' and 'definitely become an NPC', I'd agree that's not really a choice. Whereas 'maybe be eaten by dragon' vs 'break your oath and incur the contempt of your god, society & comrades' is a tough choice.

 

[S'mon]

What if a player has their character do mostly good things with a rare evil thing every now and then?

Then they're Evil, possibly with a Neutral tendency.

Not that I track Alignment in my 5e games. I don't care what players put on their PC sheet.

 

[S'mon]

The only oath that fits the situation would be the oath of cowardice which has yet to be invented!

Oath of Utilitarianism? Oath of Self Preservation? Oath of Not Being Put in Bad Situation by DM?

 

[S'mon]

Nope. I'm thinking "Good" in the sense of prior editions with Paladins - there's Good and Evil, and separate Law and Chaos, and they aren't the same.

Sounds more like you're taking a Utilitarian/Consequentialist approach to Good, as opposed to what you call Lawful, but is actually the Steve Rogers Lawful Good-Good seen in Tolkien, CS Lewis and other works adherent to Christian morality. When Peter denied the Lord three times before sunrise to save his skin, that was seen as a moral failure, not as Good.