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

[Yardiff]

Off topic somewhat
And this is just my opinion.
I think WotC make a mistake not changing the name of the overall class from Paladin. To me the only Oath that fits the D&D Paladin is the Oath of Devotion. WotC should have renamed the overall class from Paladin to some along the lines of Divine Warrior. Then each Oath would have a title so Oath of Devotion would be Paladin, Oath of the Ancients could be something like Crusader, Oath of Vengence maybe Avenger or whatever fits best.
As I said that just my opinion.

 

[Wiseblood]

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.

Well to be fair Batman is a criminal vigilante and he wasn’t given a choice between save yourself or save one guy (or die trying). He was given a choice of which one, of two other people, to save.

This paladin would be more aptly compared to the people on the boats. Except instead of refusing to play the game set before him, he detonated the other boat that was full of criminals.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I may be remembering incorrectly - it's been a long time. But Joker has been captured and he tells Batman that he's captured Dent and Batsie's girlfriend(?) and that he can only save one.

IMHO Batman did not commit an evil act because he was forced to choose. The evil is all on Joker. You can't save everyone.

But after a while it's just semantics. I can see that even in this case, the big B should probably go see a shrink* to deal with his issues. Just like a paladin should seek absolution.

*and get a mobile bat phone so he could have just sent someone to the other location. Except of course he's the only one in the city who could do it ... just like the PC in the OP's scenario is one of the few people that can save the world because of plot reasons.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I may be remembering incorrectly - it's been a long time. But Joker has been captured and he tells Batman that he's captured Dent and Batsie's girlfriend(?) and that he can only save one.

IMHO Batman did not commit an evil act because he was forced to choose. The evil is all on Joker. You can't save everyone.

But after a while it's just semantics. I can see that even in this case, the big B should probably go see a shrink* to deal with his issues. Just like a paladin should seek absolution.

*and get a mobile bat phone so he could have just sent someone to the other location. Except of course he's the only one in the city who could do it ... just like the PC in the OP's scenario is one of the few people that can save the world because of plot reasons.

That's The Dark Knight the movie, not The Dark Knight Returns the comic series.

 

[Oofta]

Well to be fair Batman is a criminal vigilante and he wasn’t given a choice between save yourself or save one guy (or die trying). He was given a choice of which one, of two other people, to save.

This paladin would be more aptly compared to the people on the boats. Except instead of refusing to play the game set before him, he detonated the other boat that was full of criminals.

But that's been covered. The player thought they were in a no win situation, if they didn't give up the NPC they were both dead.

In either case there was no good solution.

 

[Oofta]

That's The Dark Knight the movie, not The Dark Knight Returns the comic series.

D'oh! Flunked Batman trivia.

 

[Eric V]

I may be remembering incorrectly - it's been a long time. But Joker has been captured and he tells Batman that he's captured Dent and Batsie's girlfriend(?) and that he can only save one.

IMHO Batman did not commit an evil act because he was forced to choose. The evil is all on Joker. You can't save everyone.

But after a while it's just semantics. I can see that even in this case, the big B should probably go see a shrink* to deal with his issues. Just like a paladin should seek absolution.

*and get a mobile bat phone so he could have just sent someone to the other location. Except of course he's the only one in the city who could do it ... just like the PC in the OP's scenario is one of the few people that can save the world because of plot reasons.

Ah! You are referring to the Christopher Nolan film 'The Dark Knight.' I thought you were referencing the 4-issue series by Frank Miller and Klaus Janson 'The Dark Knight Returns.'

In that scenario, Batman doesn't leave one to die; he chooses one and Gordon and the police choose the other. No one is left to fend for themselves. None of that makes Batman evil at all...

But...

...whom did Bruce choose to save? Rachel. That the Joker lied about the respective locations is irrelevant; Bruce thought he was going to save Rachel and made his choice selfishly. I can't see an argument under any ethical theory that validates Bruce's choice of Rachel over Dent (besides egoism, I suppose).

It's an understandable choice...but not an ethical one, per se.

Still doesn't make him evil, but he definitely wasn't thinking about Gotham at the time.

 

[Maxperson]

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

And a lot of DMs have new PCs come in at a lower level.

 

[Oofta]

Ah! You are referring to the Christopher Nolan film 'The Dark Knight.' I thought you were referencing the 4-issue series by Frank Miller and Klaus Janson 'The Dark Knight Returns.'

In that scenario, Batman doesn't leave one to die; he chooses one and Gordon and the police choose the other. No one is left to fend for themselves. None of that makes Batman evil at all...

But...

...whom did Bruce choose to save? Rachel. That the Joker lied about the respective locations is irrelevant; Bruce thought he was going to save Rachel and made his choice selfishly. I can't see an argument under any ethical theory that validates Bruce's choice of Rachel over Dent (besides egoism, I suppose).

It's an understandable choice...but not an ethical one, per se.

Still doesn't make him evil, but he definitely wasn't thinking about Gotham at the time.

Yeah, take away my geek card.

A better example would be Sophie's Choice - a woman forced by the Nazis to choose between her two children. One of whom will live, one will die.

Again, while Sophie blames herself, I don't think she did anything wrong or evil. Had she not chosen both children would have died. The player in the OP's scenario believed he could either leave the NPC with the dragon or they would both die.

To me, it's the intent and reasoning behind the paladin's choice that matters. He saw only two options: both he and the NPC die or only the NPC dies. Since he was on a mission to save the world, dying for no reason would have been the more evil choice.

 

[Eric V]

Yeah, take away my geek card.

A better example would be Sophie's Choice - a woman forced by the Nazis to choose between her two children. One of whom will live, one will die.

Again, while Sophie blames herself, I don't think she did anything wrong or evil. Had she not chosen both children would have died. The player in the OP's scenario believed he could either leave the NPC with the dragon or they would both die.

To me, it's the intent and reasoning behind the paladin's choice that matters. He saw only two options: both he and the NPC die or only the NPC dies. Since he was on a mission to save the world, dying for no reason would have been the more evil choice.

Yeah, Sophie's Choice is a good example...I think. I think it makes a difference, though, when one chooses another, or one's own self. Sophie was choosing between her two children, but that she would escape was not in question (insofar as I remember).

If she could have had both children live while she dies, I think she chooses that.
If she could have the possibility of one child living while she dies, I think she chooses that too, even if the odds are extremely unlikely.

Is the idea that some other heroes might take up the world-saving quest worth looking at?

Either way, I don't think the paladin should face much of anything in consequence. It's more tragic than immoral.

But it also depends on the attitude with which the decision was made: flippant? Heart-wrenching? Did all avenues get explored first?