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

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

So was Batman shooting Darkseid with the radion bullet during Final Crisis evil?

 

[pemerton]

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

If the dragon wants the paladin alive - which the paladin has already persuaded it off - then why would the paladin think the dragon would kill him?

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Irrelevant. Red Herring. It simply doesn't matter what the Paladin's belief was.

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

Once the fuller version was described, the option was obvious. Paladin made no case for NPC's life, just for his own.

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.

Agreed. Did the Paladin intend for the NPC to die when he told the dragon he could have him?

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

Agreed, but that wasn't what happened.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not into playing or expecting lawful stupid paladins.

There is no honor in throwing away your life needlessly.

Huh? How is martyrdom lawful stupid?

 

[pemerton]

So, why are you arguing with me? We would both do, apparently, exactly the same thing - leave it up to the player.

If you'd read my posts, you'd know what I disagree with you about: I think the paladin did a wrong thing; and I think the contrast between this scenario and the Cap/Bucky one that you brought up and called out as a challenge is straightforward one for non-consequentialist moral frameworks.

I also briefly posted some comments about GMing - while pointing out that that wasn't my main concdenr in my posts - and you said you weren't interested in how I approach my games.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I'm not well versed in moral philosophy, but is there a philosophy where most of the time the act itself matters but in certain extreme circumstances the greater good does?

 

[pemerton]

Intent is the only thing that matters.

Most systems of criminal law distinguish attempts from fully realised crimes.

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.

To me that sounds like unlawful/dangerous act manslaughter. Or whatever the equivalent is in the typical US criminal code.

 

[pemerton]

So was Batman shooting Darkseid with the radion bullet during Final Crisis evil?

Was he shooting in self-defence? Was he carrying out a legitimate punishment? (In some non-consequentialist moralities this is a permissible reason for inflicting suffering on someone.) Was he attacking an innocent?

I don't know the story and so don't know the answers to the above questions (obviously Darkseid is not innoent per se, but may have been innocent in the context of the events you describe).

 

[Yardiff]

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

Here again your reading something into what was said.

The OP wrote that he had thought that the paladin player might have believe that the encounter had progressed to a no win situation but that it was just something he had though because at that point he hadn't talked with the player about it. Even when he had agreed with Ovinomancer's posts he had still said it was only what he believed the player may have thought.

As far as I'll can tell there no hard facts of the player believed.




But he just thought 'F*** you, your picking on me', I think. I really don't.

 

[Campbell]

I do not like using the violate when it comes to a paladin failing to live up to his code. For me the cornerstone of any paladin should be unwavering faith in their deity a commitment to try to live up to their code. The way the codes are written no one could meaningfully live up to that standard all the time. What's important to me is that they genuinely try and when they fall short seek penance.

No deity, especially not one who would raise up a paladin dedicated to the tenants of good, is going to throw away one of their favored who is genuinely dedicated to them. They might demand penance for failing short. They might require atonement in rare cases where they doubt the paladin's commitment and faith. This will be rare. More likely they might seek redress by requiring something of that paladin. It might be as simple as delivering news of the NPC's death to next of kin.