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

[Fanaelialae]

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

To me, this quote looks like an assumption. We have no idea whether, while the paladin was trying to convince the dragon to let them go, he made a case for the NPC's life. The OP merely gave us a very brief summary of the negotiation, not a transcript. It's entirely plausible to me that the paladin included the NPC in his initial argument. We simply don't know either way.

 

[Yardiff]

I've reviewed all the OP post that I could find. The dragon says 'give me the NPC I hunger.' Pretty much that all the dragon says. Of course we still don't have all that happened in the encounter.

 

[Oofta]

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

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

Wait ... you seriously believe that? If I was at a gun range, shooting at a target and the bullet kills someone I did not know was there. That I would be convicted of manslaughter?

If I were firing a gun in what any reasonable person would believe is a safe and responsible manner, there is no jury that would convict me.

If I have no way of knowing my actions will result in harm to another individual I am not morally or legally responsible unless I am being reckless or otherwise negligent.

Knowledge and intent define morality.

 

[5ekyu]

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.



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.



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.

"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."

I would only suffer from this in one bit...

To me, it's likely that this "metagame knowledge" actually has representation in the game world for the character.

Someone reference MK of how the GM games run... but what that turns out to be is what the world is like to the character. All the bits of the scene we dont have - tone, timing, emotion, exact wording, prior scenes leading to this (like where did this dragon come from? Was it what we were running from or just brand new poof out of the blue, etc etc etc... there are a gazillion bits of info that informs both the character and player that we dont have.

So to me, classifying this as metagame knowledge goes a long way beyond what we know.

Then again, some GMs have much broader and even inconsistent views on MK, so... it's possible.

For me, when I read scenes described by one side of a conflict only, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the unrepresented side where possible.

 

[FrogReaver]

To me, this quote looks like an assumption. We have no idea whether, while the paladin was trying to convince the dragon to let them go, he made a case for the NPC's life. The OP merely gave us a very brief summary of the negotiation, not a transcript. It's entirely plausible to me that the paladin included the NPC in his initial argument. We simply don't know either way.

I am discussing the account presented. If it’s not in that account then I’m not discussing it. Not to hard to understand is it?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I am discussing the account presented. If it’s not in that account then I’m not discussing it. Not to hard to understand is it?

No, not hard to understand at all.

So then, the OP stated outright that at no point did the paladin make a case for the NPC's life? I don't recall that from any of the OP's posts, but it is entirely possible that I am mistaken.

 

[pemerton]

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.

So why are you disagreeing with my posts which are entirely about this?

 

[pemerton]

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.

The paladin clearly can force the dragon's hand - are you really prepared to use force to get this NPC, given that I've persuaded you that it's in your interests that I live?

And of course the dragon can knock the paladin unconscious without killing him - we don't need the much-vaunted "rulings not rules" to get that result, it's right there in the zero hp rules.

 

[pemerton]

Wait ... you seriously believe that? If I was at a gun range, shooting at a target and the bullet kills someone I did not know was there. That I would be convicted of manslaughter?

Tell me more about the situation.

For discharging a firearm in general, what sort of target is someone shooting at? An animal in the woods? A bottle in your backyard?

When we get to a target at a commercial firing range, or on a military base, what precautions were you taking? I've never been on a firing range, commercial or otherwise, but I am guessing that they have many precautions to ensure that the discharging of firearms does not constitute an unlawful and/or dangerous act.

But prima facie, yes, killing a person by discharging a firearm seems to me to raise the question of manslaughter. I'd be surprised if the police did not pay some attention when a homicide of that sort occurs.

If I were firing a gun in what any reasonable person would believe is a safe and responsible manner, there is no jury that would convict me.

So if you add in that additional piece of information, sure. Initially you said if I fire a gun at a gun range where there is a person you don't know is there. That does not contain the additional information you provide. And the very fact of a homicide resulting raises the question of manslaughter.

If I have no way of knowing my actions will result in harm to another individual I am not morally or legally responsible unless I am being reckless or otherwise negligent.

Sure. Negligence in some form or other is an element of manslaughter. The mere fact that you're firing a gun at a firing range doesn't prove you're not negligent!

Knowledge and intent define morality.

No. Or, at least, not self-evidently. Negligence, which can include a failure to acquire knowledge, can be a basis for liability in both criminal and civil law. And the flip side of negligent criminality is being guilty only of attempt rather than the offence itself because of some intervening circumstance outside your knowledge and control.

And then when we move from law to morality, there is the much-discussed notion of moral luck. (The phrase is Bernard Williams', but I don't think he was the first to notice the phenomenon.) You can come under duties not because of what you intend or what you know but simply the circumstances you find yourself in. This seems to be how the paladin in the OP scenario came under a duty to the NPC.

Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence and Morality is one of the best-known attacks on moral luck in the context of duties of rescue - by rejecting common-sensical notions that immediate proximity is relevant. But non-consequentialists don't accept Singer's argument.

 

[5ekyu]

Tell me more about the situation.

For discharging a firearm in general, what sort of target is someone shooting at? An animal in the woods? A bottle in your backyard?

When we get to a target at a commercial firing range, or on a military base, what precautions were you taking? I've never been on a firing range, commercial or otherwise, but I am guessing that they have many precautions to ensure that the discharging of firearms does not constitute an unlawful and/or dangerous act.

But prima facie, yes, killing a person by discharging a firearm seems to me to raise the question of manslaughter. I'd be surprised if the police did not pay some attention when a homicide of that sort occurs.

So if you add in that additional piece of information, sure. Initially you said if I fire a gun at a gun range where there is a person you don't know is there. That does not contain the additional information you provide. And the very fact of a homicide resulting raises the question of manslaughter.

Sure. Negligence in some form or other is an element of manslaughter. The mere fact that you're firing a gun at a firing range doesn't prove you're not negligent!

No. Or, at least, not self-evidently. Negligence, which can include a failure to acquire knowledge, can be a basis for liability in both criminal and civil law. And the flip side of negligent criminality is being guilty only of attempt rather than the offence itself because of some intervening circumstance outside your knowledge and control.

And then when we move from law to morality, there is the much-discussed notion of moral luck. (The phrase is Bernard Williams', but I don't think he was the first to notice the phenomenon.) You can come under duties not because of what you intend or what you know but simply the circumstances you find yourself in. This seems to be how the paladin in the OP scenario came under a duty to the NPC.

Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence and Morality is one of the best-known attacks on moral luck in the context of duties of rescue - by rejecting common-sensical notions that immediate proximity is relevant. But non-consequentialists don't accept Singer's argument.

This is the part of the position you seem to be taking that baffles me.

"This seems to be how the paladin in the OP scenario came under a duty to the NPC."

You have this somewhat solid defined( and extremeist yo me) view of some obligation to the NPC thatbincludes offering up your life for theirs (not just risk but likely death) even if it wont necessarily save them.

This seems to even trump a prior "obligation" or agreement with others on a quest to save the world.

You seem to take it as a given that this degree of moral obligation to this individual applies to this paladin in this case with this oath and this circumstance.

Yet, the only evidence we have in the scene gives us none of that.

I mean, hey, we dont even know if this dragon was the force of the epunds and what they were fleeing, right?

If the paladin was trying to rescue this injured fellow from a pack of orcs performing a dark summoning, carrying them to safety to save them from and stop orcs' ritual... then poof a dragon shows up with the claim and offer about eating etc... hasn't whatever deal (overt or implied) changed?

If not, if once I start trying to save someone from a specific harm, I am obliged automatically (stated or otherwise) to do whatever I can to protect them from any harm, that's one heck of an expansion of responsibility.

It would seem to me, that in a world where that was the norm... a paladin would morally be very hesitant to take on this broad open-ended obligation of the rescuer. After all, perhaps this person is evil or protecting them might lead to evil. So, taking that huge an obligation is akin to taking on a master for a knight or samurai.

I mean, basically, if that degree of obligation is assumed by starting to rescue - why would it even be within oath for the paladin to go so off mission when already on a quest to save many many more? Did not the save the world rescue mission also come with this degree of implicit obligation?

Or does the obligation-de-facto only kick in after the individual is taken to be rescued? If so, why?