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

[pemerton]

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?

Sort-of. Michael Walzer defends what you describe in his book Just and Unjust Wars. He calls it "supreme emergency", and he argues that it does justify the British terror bombing of Germany up to about 1942 when the US fully enters the war in Europe. But argues that it does not justify the terror and atomic bombing of Japan because the war was clearly won at that point.

Tony Coady argues against the idea of supreme emergency on the grounds that it creates a "get out of jail free" card for anyone who wants one.

I'm not sure what things would have to look like for a paladin to invoke supreme emergency - maybe the only way to stop Tharizdun manifesting here and now is to give the NPC to the dragon. I don't think the OP scenario gets anywhere near close enough.

 

[Hussar]

Kamikaze who lived

Did you read the article?

These were Kamikaze pilots who failed in their missions. They returned because their planes developed engine trouble. Which, kinda sinks whatever point you were trying to make.

 

[FrogReaver]

Did you read the article?

These were Kamikaze pilots who failed in their missions. They returned because their planes developed engine trouble. Which, kinda sinks whatever point you were trying to make.

Yes I read it. Their mission stated they were to return if they had engine trouble. Thus, returning was part of their mission.

 

[Campbell]

I think even in cases where a paladin makes a willful decision to go against their principles for the greater good it still eats at them and they are willing to face the consequences. They will still seek penance. It is never something taken lightly. They do not feel morally justified.

In most cases a merciful, just deity will still embrace them if they are able to. The act might go to far. Deities are still NPCs with emotions and motivations of their own. It should probably hurt if they have to let them go.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sort-of. Michael Walzer defends what you describe in his book Just and Unjust Wars. He calls it "supreme emergency", and he argues that it does justify the British terror bombing of Germany up to about 1942 when the US fully enters the war in Europe. But argues that it does not justify the terror and atomic bombing of Japan because the war was clearly won at that point.

Tony Coady argues against the idea of supreme emergency on the grounds that it creates a "get out of jail free" card for anyone who wants one.

I'm not sure what things would have to look like for a paladin to invoke supreme emergency - maybe the only way to stop Tharizdun manifesting here and now is to give the NPC to the dragon. I don't think the OP scenario gets anywhere near close enough.

Interesting. Your right it doesn't perfectly fit, but it's interesting to see some belief that keeping classic morality but adding a few exceptions is something that's being considered. Of course, any decision point like that makes a moral system much harder to follow.

 

[Hussar]

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.

And, really, that's where the rub lies. To you it's "blantantly obvious". To me, it's not. The dragon delivered a very credible threat and forced the paladin to give up the man. Since we cannot speak to the player's intent, we also cannot speak to the DM's intent either. Only the situation as presented.

Can the dragon take the man by force? Yes. Does the paladin have any chance of stopping the dragon if the dragon decides to use force? No. The dragon's average damage will kill the paladin in one round. The paladin flat out cannot win this encounter. Why is the dragon leaving the paladin alive? Maybe he wants to spread fear about how great a dragon he is. I dunno. Again, none of us know, so, we can only deal in facts.

Fact 1. The paladin has zero chance of opposing the dragon in combat. Can we agree?
Fact 2. The dragon has told the paladin that the paladin can go only if he leaves the man, otherwise, the dragon will kill them both. Can we agree on this fact?

Given those facts, how can the paladin be blamed here? It's no different than blaming a mugging victim.

Huh? How is martyrdom lawful stupid?

How is this martyrdom? What greater purpose is being served? He accomplishes absolutely nothing. He dies, the man dies. A martyr needs to stand for something no? A martyr needs to accomplish something no? What was accomplished here? What purpose was served.

And, again, can I wipe out all the paladins in a world by simply holding a few hostages? You folks never seem to want to answer this.

Yes I read it. Their mission stated they were to return if they had engine trouble. Thus, returning was part of their mission.

Sigh. Yeah. That's the sort of pedantic garbage that makes these conversations so frustrating. Return if mechanical issues result in your not being able to attempt to complete your mission isn't exactly part of the mission. Seriously? THIS is the argument you want to make?

 

[Hussar]

It's funny how all these hypotheticals keep being proposed - the kidnapping victim, the police officer, whatnot. But, as soon as they're actually looked at in any depth, they reveal that no, they either aren't similar to what's being talked about, or they really aren't the moral choice.

I'm still waiting to see how Pemerton justifies blaming the parents for not having the kidnapper murder them and still not preventing the kidnapping somehow become morally implicated in child endangerment or neglect. That's an interesting twist.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sigh. Yeah. That's the sort of pedantic garbage that makes these conversations so frustrating. Return if mechanical issues result in your not being able to attempt to complete your mission isn't exactly part of the mission. Seriously? THIS is the argument you want to make?

Oh, I agree it pedantic. But then so was your post in response to the article I posted. I posted the article because I thought it was interesting as before it I hadn't realized there was any kamikaze pilot that survived. Of course, the article itself subtely changed the definition of a kamikaze pilot from someone that crashed their plane into a target to someone that left on a mission to crash their plane into a target. Anyways I thought it was interesting and worth sharing mostly because it surprised me.

You'll notice I didn't make an argument based on it till after you came back mocking me for posting it. It's only after that when I decided it was worth being pedantic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

@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.

Well, the OP hasn't given us all of the pertinent details. Nor has the player had a say as to what he actually did, was thinking, and perceived during the scenario.

Without all of the necessary facts, how can you presume to pass judgement?

Taking the scene as it is means that there's not much point to any of this discussion. None of us were present or privy to all of the facts. What we've really all been discussing is what we BELIEVE happened, and the moral / game implications thereof.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the OP hasn't given us all of the pertinent details. Nor has the player had a say as to what he actually did, was thinking, and perceived during the scenario.

Without all of the necessary facts, how can you presume to pass judgement?

Taking the scene as it is means that there's not much point to any of this discussion. None of us were present or privy to all of the facts. What we've really all been discussing is what we BELIEVE happened, and the moral / game implications thereof.

I've been discussing what happened based on what has been given to us. As you'll notice, as soon as more information became available I'm the only one that changed positions.