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

[Yardiff]

It absolutely DOES hold water - you are perfectly aware of the many, many game scenarios, including official ones, where the PC(s) are clearly described as being the only ones available or in a position to save the world, and where (in official adventures) it is clearly stated that if the PCs fail, the world does indeed end. The Paladin believed he was in such a situation, that his own survival was absolutely necessary to prevent the world's end, and therefore he COULD NOT simply think about one person's well-being or his personal honor, because he had an obligation to the other people of the world not to let them all die. In a scenario where the PC was not urgently needed elsewhere, and he could afford the luxury of dying in the name of his code (or simply because he cared about the man he was trying to protect), sure, the Paladin is free to risk sacrificing his own life in a useless gesture to try to save the man. But here the Paladin has MUCH greater obligations to MANY more people, and will STILL LOSE THE MAN if he fails to save the world (which he obviously cannot try to do if he is dead from trying to fight a dragon.)

If you are an expert at defusing nuclear bombs, and you are on a very tight time limit to prevent a bomb from going off and at the same time a child's life is in danger from some other source, you may feel sick in your heart about it but you focus on the bomb, not the kid because if the bomb blows the kid dies anyway. Sometimes there is no scenario where everybody lives, and in that case you have to save the most people you can. That's doesn't make you evil or heartless. Good people - real or fictional - forced to make such decisions should be pitied and treated with compassion, not berated for failing to do the impossible.

This assumes that one PC and only one PC is the all important character and if this PC dies its all over. What about the other 3+ PC's? The lose of one PC doesnt end.

 

[5ekyu]

I think everyone agrees that "rocks fall, everybody dies" is poor GMing. BUt I don't think anyone thinks that that therefore changes what counts as a life-ending event for a PC. Or to put it another way, I think everyone agrees that the proper response to that sort of GMing is to discuss how the GM is handling the game, not to argue that the fiction should come out the way the players want while also containing the fiction of rocks falling.

Yet in this dragon case, people seem to be arguing that because the GM has put the paladin (and, at the table, the player) in a hard if not impossible situation, that means that the paladin is entitled to disregard his/her duty and do the expeident thing so that the player can keep playing the game with his/her PC.

Everybody can see the category error that would ve involved in the "rocks fall" version of the scenario. I'm saying that the you have no way out scenario has exactly the same structure.

This is being put from the player's point of view not the paladin's. The paladin isn't trying to solve a puzzle. The player may be, if that's the sort of RPG that is being played. But that doesn't tell us about the paladin's duty.

I'm not saying the player is evil. I've got no reason to think the player's not a top bloke. I'm saying that the paladin violated his/her duty.

It's not a rabbit hole. It's simply not doing something that you're sworn not to do, because it would be dishonourable and evil.

There's no doubt that some people think it's permissible, even obligatory, to do such things in pursuit of a greater good (in this case, the "world saving quest"). But such moral views would normally be contrasted with a morality of duty and ethic of honour - not presented as instances of such!

"Everybody can see the category error that would ve involved in the "rocks fall" version of the scenario. I'm saying that the you have no way out scenario has exactly the same structure."

Actually, no.

I am saying that in terms of the in-game fiction, no "but the gm" at all, the action chosen was not evil, did not violate oath. The paladin did not kill the NPC nor vost the NPC their life. They tried to save and failed and chose the only option that seemed to offer any reasonable chance to right that failure.

 

[pemerton]

@Ovinomancer - your post upthread about actualising the paladin trope in D&D, and especially 5e, is reasonable and thoughtful. And it sits very well with some of your ther posts over recent weeks/months about the play of various sorts of RPG.

From my own experience, the obstacles to realising the trope in D&D play aren't as great as you suggest.

The first paladin I GMed was in Rolemaster in 1990. For present purposes I think RM is no different from 5e D&D - a detailed combat system, a detailed magic system, a non-combat skill system that is workable but not as detailed as the previous two.

My 4e D&D game has a (literal) paladin PC, a (function, mechanically a Fighter/Cleric) paladin PC, a deva invoker who approaches every action through the lens of divine service, a ranger/cleric, and a sorcerer who is sworn to the service of Corellan and Chan the Queen of Good Elemental Creatures. Again, for present purposes I don't see 4e as that different from 5e. D&D.

I played a (functional) paladin (mechanically a slightly broken S&P cleric) in a 2nd ed game in the mid-to-late 70s. That game had some GMing issues not uncommon (in my experience) at D&D tables, but not because of the paladin.

Your post begins from an assumption/premise about what the point of play is in D&D. If the point of play is (roughly speaking) to solve the puzzle posed by the GM/unravel the GM's plot, and if this puzzle/plot contains (the possibility of) OP-like situations, then you're correct that it's going to be hard to fully realise the paladin trope. But I think that D&D doesn't have to be played with that sort of goal; and, if it is, I don't think it has to be as hard as you suggest to avoid those sorts of situations: just use four-colouor narration (so no orc babies, no "Your life or the NPC's" from uber-powerfu foes, etc) of the sort found in many of the classic D&D adventures.

I do agree with you about the significance of stripping PC abilities. But I haven't said anything about that aspect of things in this thread, except to point to a 2011 thread that I started and that I still stand by, explaining why I think GM-adjudicated alignment tends to make for bad RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

They tried to save and failed and chose the only option that seemed to offer any reasonable chance to right that failure.

Why did the paladin not offer himself to the dragon in lieu of the NPC?

The implied reason is that the paladin's own mission was far more important...without the paladin to save the world, everyone (including the NPC) is doomed. "You don't know this about me but I'm kind of a big deal."

It doesn't really hold water unless he is (or believes he is) the only hero that exists, or will ever exist, in the world. But it seems to be a popular defense.

I'm sure you're right. But how is that not a sin of pride right there?

If the paladin dies doing the right thing and the bad people win, that's not the paladin's fault. That's the fault of the bad people. In assuming that s/he is responsible for the overall fate of the world, the paladin is inserting him-/herself into the place of the divinity.

 

[Campbell]

I am not really talking about direct intercession. The dragon might be concerned that they would be cursed or inspire own of her other servants to act against the dragon. Dieties should have some form of influence. Otherwise there is no divine providence at all and paladins are fighters with magic powers.

There might also be the matter of a paladin's temporal position to consider. The paladin is off on a quest now, but what happens when he does not return? Will not the members of his order wonder what happened?

 

[5ekyu]

Regarding offering himself up...

Why did the paladin not offer himself to the dragon in lieu of the NPC?

I'm sure you're right. But how is that not a sin of pride right there?

If the paladin dies doing the right thing and the bad people win, that's not the paladin's fault. That's the fault of the bad people. In assuming that s/he is responsible for the overall fate of the world, the paladin is inserting him-/herself into the place of the divinity.

While we do not know the full details, we know there was negotiayption, a strong result and that got the in game fiction to the offer made.

Given that, taking that as known to character, knowing g itvtook work and success to get to this, as a character I would bbe hesitant to risk making it worse by continuing to push. As a player, knowing the rules allow for low failures to go worse and that a high roll only got me this, risking another roll with " both die" on the table seems the opposite of good.

Besides, as observed the paladin was already involved in a mission to save the world. That one seems to have preceeded this caery to safety. So, if one is compelled by duty and obligation, choosing to honor the bigger and prior obligation would make sense.

But, all that combines with the full scene and stuff as it was perceived by the player - they saw it as accept or both die after their attempt at escape and successful negotiation only got them that far.

Had the dragons offer been " one of you dies tonight to feed me, you chose" - it only changes it a little for me - given the prior quest and the fact that the guy was injured and being carried to start. Only one choice has the possibility of saving both (unless this NPC is rich.)

But this keeps skipping the point. We can sit here and wax on about other possible coulda woulda should options the player did not see. Like any Monday Night QB, whatever play "wasnt called" might been the right choice in our imagination.

But I imagine if the pally had chosen to keep pressing, had failed and drsgon decided to just cook and eat both... you could be found here waxing about how much the sin of pride and not taking the deal was the fallen paladin isdue and should vcoulda woulda taken the option that could bring that guy back to life later.

Oh well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer - your post upthread about actualising the paladin trope in D&D, and especially 5e, is reasonable and thoughtful. And it sits very well with some of your ther posts over recent weeks/months about the play of various sorts of RPG.

From my own experience, the obstacles to realising the trope in D&D play aren't as great as you suggest.

The first paladin I GMed was in Rolemaster in 1990. For present purposes I think RM is no different from 5e D&D - a detailed combat system, a detailed magic system, a non-combat skill system that is workable but not as detailed as the previous two.

My 4e D&D game has a (literal) paladin PC, a (function, mechanically a Fighter/Cleric) paladin PC, a deva invoker who approaches every action through the lens of divine service, a ranger/cleric, and a sorcerer who is sworn to the service of Corellan and Chan the Queen of Good Elemental Creatures. Again, for present purposes I don't see 4e as that different from 5e. D&D.

I played a (functional) paladin (mechanically a slightly broken S&P cleric) in a 2nd ed game in the mid-to-late 70s. That game had some GMing issues not uncommon (in my experience) at D&D tables, but not because of the paladin.

Your post begins from an assumption/premise about what the point of play is in D&D. If the point of play is (roughly speaking) to solve the puzzle posed by the GM/unravel the GM's plot, and if this puzzle/plot contains (the possibility of) OP-like situations, then you're correct that it's going to be hard to fully realise the paladin trope. But I think that D&D doesn't have to be played with that sort of goal; and, if it is, I don't think it has to be as hard as you suggest to avoid those sorts of situations: just use four-colouor narration (so no orc babies, no "Your life or the NPC's" from uber-powerfu foes, etc) of the sort found in many of the classic D&D adventures.

I do agree with you about the significance of stripping PC abilities. But I haven't said anything about that aspect of things in this thread, except to point to a 2011 thread that I started and that I still stand by, explaining why I think GM-adjudicated alignment tends to make for bad RPGing.

Yes, you don't have to play D&D that way, but I think that it's fighting the game to do so, more or less. The system is designed from a DM-curated assumption of play, from the presentation of scenes, to the challenges therein, to the adjudication thereof. On top of that, it focuses on stories of zero to hero, encourages narrative-direction from the DM, and uses a combat system that is heavily weighted towards problem-solving by causes the problems to stop breathing. 4e differed in that, accidentally IMO, it actually facilitated a style of play that is more player driven than DM driven. I've played ChartMaster before as well, but I'll be honest that I couldn't recall enough to tell you if it also lent itself more towards player-driven play than 5e does.

So, no, I really don't think that "you could bend 5e into something more player-directed" really works well with the system as-built and certainly not with the predominant style of play in D&D. I don't think that pointing out different games and how they play really addresses issues extant in 5e D&D. System matters.

Take the OP situation. Here, the DM introduced a no-win in the form of a dragon well above the PC's capability. The PC still made an effort to play out of the situation, but lacking the framework to establish stakes for the action or to enforce the player's goal on a success, the resolution fell, as 5e directs, to the DM to determine. As noted by the OP, a mistake in this adjudication was made, but this mistake was enabled by the way 5e operationalizes play in the mechanics -- it's all DM decides. So, the DM presented the outcome and hoped the player would guess that the dragon wasn't entirely sold on this course and would challenge it again. The player fails to guess this and determines from the resolution of his attempt being better than everyone dies, accepts the outcome. Here, we're now asked to resolve the trope and necessary outcomes according to our understanding of the trope, not the player's, despite the fact that you're encouraging play that would establish the player as the driver of the scene to begin with. It seems odd that we're ignoring the play that got here, and how the tropes of D&D play led there, but then applying understanding from either fiction or other games to determine what the trope should mean. This is what I'm driving at -- and the claim that you might could play 5e in a way conducive to other game's assumptions that would enable the trope as played in other games seems very, very odd to me. 5e has ruts, and, IIRC, that's one of the reasons you dislike the play it entails. Those ruts are that the DM is final arbiter, so whatever the DM's assumption is will be a rut play lays in. Another is how the system resolves actions -- this is a rut that's entailed multiple discussions on action resolution with the predominate form of play being players call for checks that DMs adjudicate according to how they interpret the scene with little to no input from the player (a more player-center approach is strongly attacked). Another rut is that when initiative is rolled, removal of all hit-points is the usual goal. These ruts strongly constrain play away from what you suggest, and the community, largely, is happy with them. I think suggesting that you could ignore large parts of the community and also the way the system is built to internalize the above is largely a non-starter as a general solution. I specifically do not think it adds to the OP's scenario or ask for assistance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not really talking about direct intercession. The dragon might be concerned that they would be cursed or inspire own of her other servants to act against the dragon. Dieties should have some form of influence. Otherwise there is no divine providence at all and paladins are fighters with magic powers.

There might also be the matter of a paladin's temporal position to consider. The paladin is off on a quest now, but what happens when he does not return? Will not the members of his order wonder what happened?

There's a strong argument by more than a few in this very thread that paladins are just fighters with magic powers -- and also a crippling code of conduct that requires harsh punishment for bending or breaking. It is an odd position, to be sure -- paladins are granted special power because they're held to a higher standard, but that power isn't very special when compared to other classes that aren't constrained at all. The justification for this is often just an appeal to a trope.

 

[Campbell]

There's a strong argument by more than a few in this very thread that paladins are just fighters with magic powers -- and also a crippling code of conduct that requires harsh punishment for bending or breaking. It is an odd position, to be sure -- paladins are granted special power because they're held to a higher standard, but that power isn't very special when compared to other classes that aren't constrained at all. The justification for this is often just an appeal to a trope.

It pretty much kills the point of playing the archetype for me. If there is no divine providence, no truth to the calling, then you are not really playing a paladin.

This is why Exalted Second Edition killed the point of the game to me. They pretty much implied that Exaltations had a mind of their own and that the Solar Exalted were not actually the chosen servants of The Unconquered Sun. It turned the game from being about the resurgent Law Givers of the Unconquered Sun returning to reclaim their proper place while the world sees them as demonic Anathema to one of hunted emo super heroes. Trampled right over the themes.

I think it is vastly important to make sure you are supporting the themes of each class in play.

 

[Maxperson]

Being killed by a dragon isn't suicide in the relevant sense.

Depends on how. If you have a way to survive and it's sure death to engage it, then doing so is suicide. Suicide by cop is still suicide.

The AD&D PHB says (p 22) refers to "knowingly" performing a chaotic act and "knowingly and willingly" performing an evil act. The 3.5 SRD refers to "willingly" performing an evil act. Handing over the NPC is knowing and willing. Coerced acts are nevertheless willed acts (contrast automatism, or in the context of D&D magical compulsion).

No they are not willed acts. If you are coerced, then it is by definition happening against your will. If you are willing, no coercion is necessary. Your above analysis is effectively victim blaming. You're saying that a woman who is being forced at gunpoint is a willing participant to the act. I strenuously disagree with that.

The 5e SRD describes the Sacred Oath and Oath of Devotion as "commit[tin] the paladin to the cause of righteousness, an active path of fighting wickedness" which includes "protect[ing] those entrusted to your care". Giving up the NPC to the dragon clearly does not count as protecting someone entrusted to the paladin's care. (I am aware that the paladin in the OP is Oath of Ancients, not Oath of Devotion. But Oath of Devotion is clearly the most archetypal paladin.)

Sure. But I already acknowledged that the paladin was forced into an unwilling violation of his oath.