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

[Hussar]

So, you weren't posting the article as a counter to my argument, but, simply as interesting information? Ok, fair enough. A heads up there might have been nice.

Actually, in the interests of information, the Kamikaze museum is actually not far from where I currently live. Facinating place. One of the plans to stop the US invasion of Japan was to hold back nearly the entire Japanese airforce and turn most of it into a giant wave of kamikaze attacks to sink the American carrier groups. This was the reason the Yamato (largest battleship the Japanese fielded) attacked the US carrier group without any air cover and was basically turned into a giant target for US torpedo planes.

Funnily enough, Japanese admirals criticised the plan as being a suicide mission, and they were pretty much 100% right.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Martyrdom is about dying for your beliefs. It's not about serving any other purpose than that.

 

[Hussar]

Martyrdom is about dying for your beliefs. It's not about serving any other purpose than that.

Again, this is a sticky point though.

Who determines those beliefs? We've seen different interpretations of an Oath of Ancients Paladin's oath in this thread. For me, the telling point is in the part that says that OoA paladins aren't terribly concerned with honor or courage or justice. They are all about life. "They love the beautiful and life-giving things of the world".

That's a pretty strong indictment against suicide IMO. I mean, one of the Tenets is specifically titled "Preserve Your Own Light". They are committed to "preserving life and light in the world".

All of that leads me to conclude that deliberately killing yourself is a big, BIG no no for these kinds of paladins.

I mean, heck, your 15th level power lets you not be killed - anything that doesn't outright kill you (which, at 15th level is most things) instead reduces you to 1 HP. Again, doesn't sound like a martyr type paladin to me.

To me, OoA paladins are the NG paladins. They specifically don't care about law or chaos. They are all about life and living. Given the choice between one death and two, they will always choose one. To do otherwise is to betray their oaths.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

You're nonetheless making assumptions based on incomplete information (just like the rest of us).

 

[Campbell]

Again no one is saying that he should fall. Only that he fell short of the ideals he holds and this should be bothersome to him in a heartfelt way. Paladins are embodiment of the knightly ideal. Part of the knightly ideal is that you should meet every challenger head on. If a knight decides discretion is the better part of valor because his opponent is more skilled and he would likely die he is still falling short of an almost impossible ideal. It should still bother him because he believes in that ideal fully.

This is not about justifications or the greater good. A paladin holds himself to an impossible standard no one could possibly live up to, but he tries and when he cannot he owns up to it.

 

[Hussar]

Again no one is saying that he should fall. Only that he fell short of the ideals he holds and this should be bothersome to him in a heartfelt way. Paladins are embodiment of the knightly ideal. Part of the knightly ideal is that you should meet every challenger head on. If a knight decides discretion is the better part of valor because his opponent is more skilled and he would likely die he is still falling short of an almost impossible ideal. It should still bother him because he believes in that ideal fully.

This is not about justifications or the greater good. A paladin holds himself to an impossible standard no one could possibly live up to, but he tries and when he cannot he owns up to it.

Now this? This I totally agree with. I do think that the player, if he's actually interested in the character, should play out some form of atonement. To me, this is just a fantastic RP opportunity. I guess I just do not see any need to punish the PC. It wasn't a willing violation, and, looking at the tenets of this kind of paladin, I'm not sure that it's even much of a violation at all.

But, he did fail, and in failure we truly get to see character get played out.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

Pedantically no. There's like a .00000000000000000000001% chance the Paladin can win But practically speaking, I agree. No chance of winning in combat without help.

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?

You know, 750 posts over a week into the thread it's easy to forget minor details. The dragon did say if you give me the man you can live, which is not how it's been playing back in my head. Thanks for bringing that up.

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

Implied threat that if the Paladin doesn't give the man he will die vs fact 3: Paladin successfully persuaded dragon not to kill him. I'm back to the DM totally botched this encounter. The dragon's reaction after the persusasion attempt makes no sense. Thanks for reminding me of it's actual words. The Paladin succeeded in persuading the dragon not to kill him. It shouldn't be threatening his life right after the good persuasion unless he positions his life inbetween the dragon and something it wants more.

As for the Paladin, if Paladin's existed in real life I would think he didn't have an obvious course of action. I think he needed to reasonable verify it had became a no-win situation before giving up the NPC though. However, this is the game and the metagame knowledge that he should have persuaded the dragon not to kill him and the best he could get is the dragon threatening to kill him unless he gave the dragon the NPC.

So I would like to draw line. In the game I think the metagame knowledge made the Paladin's act justifiable. It is a game afterall. In real life, I think further attempts would have needed made since metagame knowledge couldn't make you believe this is the best outcome I can get.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're nonetheless making assumptions based on incomplete information (just like the rest of us).

No I'm not.

 

[Campbell]

One of the books I am really looking forward to for Pathfinder Second Edition is Lost Omens Gods and Magic specifically because it is seeking to address the all or nothing nature of how these things usually play out. It is going to have guidance on how to work with players who fall short of the edicts of their faith including divine intercession mechanics that will include things like small curses that might effect followers until they correct course. James Jacobs views stripping characters of their powers and the atone ritual as extreme measures only to be used for collaborative story telling and wanted to provide less extreme divine intervention.

On the flip side there will also be divine blessings for when they exceed expectations.

 

[Hussar]

Implied threat that if the Paladin doesn't give the man he will die vs fact 3: Paladin successfully persuaded dragon not to kill him. I'm back to the DM totally botched this encounter. The dragon's reaction after the persusasion attempt makes no sense. Thanks for reminding me of it's actual words. The Paladin succeeded in persuading the dragon not to kill him. It shouldn't be threatening his life right after the good persuasion unless he positions his life inbetween the dragon and something it wants more.

Heh. I should apologize for my own behavior. I tend to get really, really snarky the longer a discussion goes on. Particularly when you have folks jumping into the middle of the conversation who haven't bothered actually reading the thread or the background information the thread is based on. My patience gets way too thin.

As far as the check goes, well, persuasion isn't mind control. This is quite possibly the best outcome a persuasion check could result in. Sure, the DM could rule that the dragon just buggers off since the player rolled the persuasion check, but, that's not the only possible result. IOW, a failed check just results in both dying. A successful check results in the possibility of the paladin walking away. The DM could rule that there is just no way the dragon is letting both walk away. It's not an unreasonable result.

The dragon is hungry. It wants an easy meal. Unconscious NPC is easy meal and the dragon just can't be asked to kill the paladin in the process. Which can mean that the best result the paladin could hope for is not being turned into a high fiber snack. Not that that's the only possibility, but it is a plausible one.

Which returns us back to the paladin - did he violate his oath? Now, I've been clear here and saying that an Oath of Devotion paladin would get a really different result from me. But Oath of Ancients? With their tenets that specifically say to preserve your light? I'd argue that suicidal charges is actually against their oath.

Not that that's the only interpretation. But, that's how I would interpret it.