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

[Fanaelialae]

The paladin also doesn't know that there's no chance of persuading the dragon, or of some other solution. THat's the player's knowledge driven by his/her understanding of how his/her GM runs the game.

Depending on the degree of menace in the dragon's delivery, the paladin may be entirely justified in believing that there are no alternatives left.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep - I think I might have posted about this upthread (though maybe it was in the recent lewpuls alignment thread).

Gygax, in his definition of good, is completely casual across different notions of the good, including utilitarianism as you say, human rights (which is what he mentions in his stand-alone definition of good in his DMG, though to a Benthamite those are nonsense on stilts), truth and beauty (in his PHB), etc.

That's one reason why I think debates about whether good characters can be utilitarian or not is hopeless - alignment does not resolve moral philsophical debates but straddles them by brining all the standard views into the definition of good. For a paladin, I think it then makes sense to go to the archetype, the "code" etc. In 5e the Oath of Devotion looks pretty non-utilitarian and standard duty/honour to me.

Yep, and Oath of Vengance is the opposite extreme where he is nearly fully utilitarian.

 

[pemerton]

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.

No disagreement here.

Another form of challenging scenario for a paladin would parallel Captain America's arc in Frank Miller's Born Again Daredevil arc: Cap finds himself having to confront the reality that the American political machine operates in consequentialist and "greater good" ways rather than in accordance with Caps ideals. In the real world this is probably an argument that paladins are antiquated (see eg Weber's Politics as a Vocation); at least as I remember it, in the comic book Cap brings about a degree of redemption of the government, which is more fitting to the 4 colour genre and would also be a nice way of resolving a similar situation for a PC paladin.

 

[FrogReaver]

Depending on the degree of menace in the dragon's delivery, the paladin may be entirely justified in believing that there are no alternatives left.

A menacing voice or demeanor isn't a justifiable reason for saying "okay go ahead and eat my companion".

 

[Fanaelialae]

A menacing voice or demeanor isn't a justifiable reason for saying "okay go ahead and eat my companion".

a) We don't know what the paladin said.
b) if the demeanor says that this creature, which can easily kill both people, is going to kill both if the paladin does not concede to it's demands, I think it is justified on the basis that the paladin's suicide by dragon benefits no one (except maybe the evil dragon, who now gets two meals plus some treasure)

 

[Oofta]

The player thought the "hand over the NPC" was an ultimatum and they they had no other choice. The player thought negotiations were over and it was either hand over the NPC or die along with the NPC.

I would take the player at their word because I'm not the player. I can't read their mind. I'm going to assume that, unless proven otherwise or I see a recurring pattern that the player is telling the truth.

Whether I as a DM would have thought that there was another option is not relevant to the morality of the decision.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Oofta @Fanaelialae

You both are just trying to add non-present details to the scene to justify your stance. Take the scene as it is for a change.

 

[FrogReaver]

The player thought the "hand over the NPC" was an ultimatum and they they had no other choice. The player thought negotiations were over and it was either hand over the NPC or die along with the NPC.

I would take the player at their word because I'm not the player. I can't read their mind. I'm going to assume that, unless proven otherwise or I see a recurring pattern that the player is telling the truth.

Doesn't matter what the player or Paladin thought. Morality isn't defined by a person's perception of events around them.

Whether I as a DM would have thought that there was another option is not relevant to the morality of the decision.

The argument isn't that the DM says there was another option, it's that given the situation described the option was blatantly obvious.

 

[pemerton]

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.

It's 20+ years since I've read that, but as you describe it there was no choice between evils in the most literal sense: as in, Batman did not do an evil thing in not rescuing A - and he did a good thing in not rescuing B. The situation falls short of the idea - of A and B both being rescued - but Batman has not committed an evil.

Contrast, say, Batman shooting A so as to rescue B. That would be committing an evil, assuming a standard non-consequentialist morality. In any non-consequentialist morality the nature of the acts that the agent performs, and of what she is responsible for, is fundamental. Diffrences between acts and omissions; intervening volutnary acts of others; and the like are all crucial.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta @Fanaelialae

You both are just trying to add non-present details to the scene to justify your stance. Take the scene as it is for a change.

The OP stated that the player said they believed they had no other option.

Doesn't matter what the player or Paladin thought. Morality isn't defined by a person's perception of events around them.



The argument isn't that the DM says there was another option, it's that given the situation described the option was blatantly obvious.

I couldn't disagree more. Intent is the only thing that matters. The option was not at all obvious, something the OP has admitted.

If I fire a gun at a gun range not knowing that there is someone completely obscured by the target and I kill them, it's not murder. It's an accident.

Choosing the only option available to live when there is no benefit to dying is not an evil act.