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

[Hussar]

@pemerton, I'm a little confused by your example of the assailant taking the child, because it seems to be changing.

Can you please clarify your example?

Because, this is what you wrote:

To take a graphic example: if I am killed defending my child from an assailant, and then my child suffers at the assailant's hands, I am not (posthumously) liable for negligent parenting or child endangerment. If I give my child to the assailant then I am. The fact that my child suffers either way isn't relevant - what the law fastens on is my conduct.

Which I understood to mean that you had no choice in the matter. You defined the person as an assailant - that means he was a credible threat to your life. You did not choose to give your child to this person, he took the child from you.

At no point would any court in the world possibly charge you with anything. You are a victim here. Someone kidnapped your child. Had you tried to stop them, you would have died. There isn't a legal system in the world that would possibly even hint at negligent parenting or child endangerment in this situation.

If the check had failed then the dragon seizes the NPC (or whatever). It seems to me that a powerful dragon that wants the NPC but wants the paladin alive should have the werewithal to achieve that result without the cooperation of the paladin.

THE PALADIN NEVER COOPERATED WITH THE DRAGON. Good grief, how hard is that to understand?

 

[Yardiff]

But makes success less likely since they'd be a man down.

They'd be a man down until the player brought in their new PC.

 

[Fanaelialae]

They'd be a man down until the player brought in their new PC.

The players know that. The paladin probably doesn't.

 

[S'mon]

There is no version of paladins that presents them as Benthamites.

While I agree with you, don't you think it funny that Gygax's 1e AD&D definition of Lawful Good is "the greatest good of the greatest number, and least harm to the rest" - ie a Benthamite Utilitarian standard?

Gygax was thinking that Lawful = Group over Individual, which for his LG leads to outcome-counting, how many will suffer/benefit. But Captain America and other Real Heroes don't think like that at all - they won't sacrifice an individual (other than themselves) to save the group.

 

[S'mon]

However, he also had a duty to the world itself (because he was on a quest to prevent the destruction of said world).

I find this "I'm too important to die" thing an incredibly weak argument. In fiction it's one normally used by villains, as a way for us to easily distinguish them from the heroes.

 

[S'mon]

For someone who posted that he has no interest in my games or how I play them, you sure do like to speculate about them!

I often wish he'd put you on IL!

 

[Eric V]

But for what it's worth, I do regard it as a type of "infantilising" or "dumbing down" to take the view that just because there is no way out therefore there must be no wrongdoing by the paladin.

This is true. When one chooses the lesser of two evils, one is still choosing evil. There's no argument there.

I would add, though, that we should try to tease out between events that are tragic versus events that are immoral, especially when it comes to the pc class of the paladin. I don't know enough about the original scenario, but it's often easy to confuse tragic for immoral, both in the real world and in rpgs.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I find this "I'm too important to die" thing an incredibly weak argument. In fiction it's one normally used by villains, as a way for us to easily distinguish them from the heroes.

It's not about being too important to die. The paladin may very well die in pursuit or fulfilment of the world-saving quest.

The question is one of duty. If the paladin sacrifices himself to save the NPC (which doesn't seem like it was possible, but let's assume for the moment that it was), he cannot possibly live up to his duty to save the world (barring resurrection).

The paladin's player is given a choice between one or the other. Regardless of which he chooses, it means living up to one duty and forsaking the other. There is no truly right answer, in my opinion. If the paladin sacrifices himself for the NPC, the world may end and the NPC dies anyway. Alternately, if he chooses the world over the NPC, the NPC dies.

To be clear, I am NOT saying this was the OP's scenario. In that one, the evidence indicates that there was no way to save the NPC shirt of the player reading the DM's mind. This is simply a hypothetical scenario to explore a what-if and explain the concept of duty, as I see it, in this hypothetical.

 

[Oofta]

This is true. When one chooses the lesser of two evils, one is still choosing evil. There's no argument there.

I would add, though, that we should try to tease out between events that are tragic versus events that are immoral, especially when it comes to the pc class of the paladin. I don't know enough about the original scenario, but it's often easy to confuse tragic for immoral, both in the real world and in rpgs.

So is Batman in The Dark Knight Returns evil because he was put in a no-win situation where he couldn't save both hostages? IMHO a choice between two evils isn't really a "choice", it's the result of coercion.

In any case, this is covered in the PHB "Breaking Your Oath". The paladin may need to do seek absolution because no one is perfect. No one can save all the hostages - or NPCs - all the time.

 

[Eric V]

So is Batman in The Dark Knight Returns evil because he was put in a no-win situation where he couldn't save both hostages? IMHO a choice between two evils isn't really a "choice", it's the result of coercion.

In any case, this is covered in the PHB "Breaking Your Oath". The paladin may need to do seek absolution because no one is perfect. No one can save all the hostages - or NPCs - all the time.

I...can't remember the scene you are talking about. Which issue was it?

As for the other stuff, one does not become evil by committing one evil act. So even though I'm not sure which scene you're talking about, it wouldn't make Batman evil.