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

[pemerton]

I specifically do not think it adds to the OP's scenario or ask for assistance.

I entered the thread to respond to a challenge posed by @Hussar - he seemed to think it hard to explain why someone might think the OP paladin did the wrong thing yet Captain America did not do the wrong thing in purusing the fallen Bucky to try and rescue him. Whereas I think explaining that is very straightforward drawing on well-known resources in completey mainstream approaches to morality and ethics.

As for the OP's problem, there are so many possible solutions it's hard to list them all.

The paladin atones.
The dragon turns out to be a gold dragon in disguise, testing the paladin and counselling him on not giving up hope.
The NPC regains consciousness in the dragon's claws and forgives the PC.

And those are just the ones I came up with in the time it took me to type them. The second two obviously trade on the GM's control over the fiction in a typical 5e game. If a GM has made a bad call in adjudicating and communicating the fiction, that's where I would look for a solution. The idea that the solution is to be found in punsihing the player seems completely misguided to me, although I know that's a time-honoured tradition among some D&D referees.

 

[pemerton]

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.

So because someone disagrees with you you imagine they're a hypocrite?

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm applying the standard notion of voluntary behaviour that operatesin the criminal law. Duress can sometimes be a defence by way of excuse. It is not a justification. And it certainly doesn't show the conduct to have been non-voluntary.

 

[pemerton]

I think there are two paradigmatic sorts of response to a person of faith being placed in a circumstances of impossible horror or choice.

One is to treat it as a test of faith, and submit.

The other is to treat it as a sign that one's faith was misplaced, and that divine providence is a fraud, and so to abandon faith. (Whether that means becoming an atheist, or railing against a now-revealed-to-be-false god, would depend on further details.)

The idea that the obligations of faith can be reinterpreted, on the premise that there must be a proper way through the situation, is I think not one of the paradigms. It's a product of the sort of rationalism that underpinds non-theological approaches to morality (of which utilitarianism and other forms of consequentalsim are the best known).

 

[Maxperson]

I'm applying the standard notion of voluntary behaviour that operatesin the criminal law. Duress can sometimes be a defence by way of excuse. It is not a justification. And it certainly doesn't show the conduct to have been non-voluntary.

Okay. I'm applying D&D and life, though.

 

[5ekyu]

So because someone disagrees with you you imagine they're a hypocrite?

Nope. But it shows a lot that that is what you took away from it.

So, thanks.

 

[FrogReaver]

So thinking on the OP's clarification a bit more. There's an important detail we seem to be overlooking.

The PC swayed the dragon that the dragon should let him continue on his quest due to the benefits it would bring to the dragon.

I think that given the paladin's argument for why the dragon should spare him that the Dragon's next question about the NPC seems logical. "Okay Paladin I'm convinced I should spare you but you've not given me any reason your friend should be spared". The Paladin had a very obvious move there, "advise the dragon that while his quest is important and would benefit the dragon that he will not stand by and let the dragon eat the man". So I actually think our initial reaction may be wrong. This clearly wasn't a no win scenario like we first believed. It was a scenario where there was an obvious potential solution and the player/paladin dropped the ball at the last moment.

So while I initially thought the conversation and high roll that still resulted in the NPC being asked for was enough to justify giving the NPC to the dragon, I no longer think that's the case. There's such an easy and obvious righteous action to attempt before giving up hope.

The only thing I think the DM should have done differently is have the dragon phrase the question more like "and what about the injured NPC. Is he also saving the world? If not then give him to me for I hunger".

 

[FrogReaver]

Cool. A suicide mission is still suicide. Higher purpose or not.

No mission is a suicide mission. There's always a tiny chance you may fulfill your objective and come out alive.

 

[pemerton]

Nope. But it shows a lot that that is what you took away from it.

So, thanks.

If not, then please address my reasons rather than suggest that I would change my reasons if the scenario were different.

 

[S'mon]

When the paladin offers to sacrifice himself in lieu of the NPC, the dragon can be moved by that in some fashion.

I think if I were GMing it, and we'd got to the point of the dragon offering to let the Paladin go in exchange for the NPC, I think the dragon would most likely be looking to acquire something of value from the Paladin, most likely treasure for its hoard, in exchange for letting both go. It would also want to be treated with respect/deference by the Paladin; dragons tend to be vain and ego-massage probably more important than food. It would likely attack if insulted, or if the Paladin showed himself unworthy of talking to, eg by showing excessive fear/terror rather than respect.

AFAICS the OP was going for something similar.