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

[5ekyu]

Really? What hope is being kindled here? What honour? Being dragon chow? Senselessly throwing away your life to accomplish nothing? For a paladin whose oath directly states that you should revere life above all things? You talk about faith, but, ignore the actual faith of the paladin in question.

I get the point about martyrdom, I do. But, thing is, there needs to be some sort of a cause to be a martyr to. Some symbol besides, "You are crunchy and taste good with ketchup". This is a pointless death, not a martyrdom.

Becoming a martyr is more than just committing suicide by dragon. Otherwise your world must have an awful lot of martyrs.

Actually, when I google martyr, the definition is simply someone who is killed for their religious beliefs.

My bet is there are as many implied meanings for martyr as you have Faith's and beliefs and causes.

Part of the frustration of some of these positions which shift away from the context of 5e oaths and alignment to real world philosophical treatises and faiths is that it seems like from one moment to the next the target shifts to whatever philosopher refutes any claim.

To me, honestly, much of these if actually thrown in play redult in a character functionally unplayable as a PC in a troupe game that's at all like 5e presents. They may be more well suited for a one-on-one game where the setting and systems are built around these concepts.

But, if the GM puts forth that paladins are honor bound to lay down their lives against new threats as soon as they start to protect or help escape any NPC - my bet is that is effectively reducing paladins to NPCs because I doubt I have seen a single party ready to sign that guy up.

 

[S'mon]

Justifiable belief that you are in a no-win situation is one of those somethings that allows the otherwise immoral act to shift to being moral IMO.

I'd say it shifts it from immoral to amoral (or G to N), which is good enough for most folks, but not really for a Paladin.

 

[S'mon]

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.

He had the alternative of dying with his boots on, rather than hand an innocent over to the dragon. Of course beyond that he had the alternative of continuing to negotiate since the dragon wasn't actually attacking him; but the player doesn't seem to have realised that.

 

[S'mon]

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

Yes; what would be justifiable is magical compulsion, eg a failed save vs a Suggestion spell.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yeah, there was an early Judge Anderson (2000AD) story where she had to kill an innocent boy to stop him being ritually sacrificed, which would have opened a Hell-portal to Earth. But there was no suggestion that she wouldn't have sacrificed herself, if that were an option. It was presented as a horrible but morally justified choice - the boy would have died anyway.
Obviously this Paladin situation "I am on a quest to save the world - ergo I'm too important to die" comes nowhere near that, at least as described by the OP.

 

[S'mon]

But, if the GM puts forth that paladins are honor bound to lay down their lives against new threats as soon as they start to protect or help escape any NPC - my bet is that is effectively reducing paladins to NPCs because I doubt I have seen a single party ready to sign that guy up.

Does not fit my experience - when my Pally stood up to an overwhelming force the rest of my party happily backed me up. Of course by neither attacking the bandits, nor backing down, I was attempting to save both my level 1 party (from being killed by the bandits) and the peasants (from having all their rice taken, leading to starvation). And it worked.
In rules terms, Paladins with their high CHA and likely Pesuasion prof are very well suited to this kind of activity; which fits well with how Paladin-esque characters like the Lone Ranger & Captain America are typically presented in fiction.

I don't think I've ever seen a situation where a PC group turned on the Paladin for unnecessarily endangering them. If anything, they tend to look to a charismatic Paladin for a moral lead, though of course this depends on how the player plays them.

But it doesn't take Paladins to stand up to overwhelming force and be prepared to die rather than surrender. This is pretty much standard PC behaviour IME. Which is why GMs are advised never to run through 'railroad capture' scenarios - even quite ordinary PCs often prefer death to dishonour. Indeed playing Midnight I recall it was my quite Paladinesque* LG Fighter Zana Than who had to get the group to surrender to the Shadow forces, in an attempt to avoid a TPK. Sadly I escaped but the PC I was specifically trying to save from the Shadow Legate died when the other PCs botched a rescue attempt.

*I think the difference between her and a true Paladin was that she was ultimately a Benthamite Utilitarian, since Midnight is a world ruled by Evil where there is explicitly no Divine Providence. So she would do stuff like execute a captured brigand, where leaving him alive would likely have resulted in the enemy camp being alerted. She felt really bad about that though!

 

[5ekyu]

Does not fit my experience - when my Pally stood up to an overwhelming force the rest of my party happily backed me up. Of course by neither attacking the bandits, nor backing down, I was attempting to save both my level 1 party (from being killed by the bandits) and the peasants (from having all their rice taken, leading to starvation). And it worked.
In rules terms, Paladins with their high CHA and likely Pesuasion prof are very well suited to this kind of activity; which fits well with how Paladin-esque characters like the Lone Ranger & Captain America are typically presented in fiction.

I don't think I've ever seen a situation where a PC group turned on the Paladin for unnecessarily endangering them. If anything, they tend to look to a charismatic Paladin for a moral lead, though of course this depends on how the player plays them.

But it doesn't take Paladins to stand up to overwhelming force and be prepared to die rather than surrender. This is pretty much standard PC behaviour IME. Which is why GMs are advised never to run through 'railroad capture' scenarios - even quite ordinary PCs often prefer death to dishonour. Indeed playing Midnight I recall it was my quite Paladinesque* LG Fighter Zana Than who had to get the group to surrender to the Shadow forces, in an attempt to avoid a TPK. Sadly I escaped but the PC I was specifically trying to save from the Shadow Legate died when the other PCs botched a rescue attempt.

*I think the difference between her and a true Paladin was that she was ultimately a Benthamite Utilitarian, since Midnight is a world ruled by Evil where there is explicitly no Divine Providence. So she would do stuff like execute a captured brigand, where leaving him alive would likely have resulted in the enemy camp being alerted. She felt really bad about that though!

"when my Pally stood up to an overwhelming force the rest of my party happily backed me up. Of course by neither attacking the bandits, nor backing down, I was attempting to save both my level 1 party (from being killed by the bandits) and the peasants (from having all their rice taken, leading to starvation). And it worked."

You and I clearly have a difference of opinion on what "overehelming" means.

PC groups routinely take on what appears to be more than they can handle. Another example of that ewhere there was a paladin involved shows nothing really.

 

[Hussar]

He had the alternative of dying with his boots on, rather than hand an innocent over to the dragon. Of course beyond that he had the alternative of continuing to negotiate since the dragon wasn't actually attacking him; but the player doesn't seem to have realised that.

But, again "dying with his boots on" is a direct violation of the tenets of his oath. Why is this point being ignored? An Oath of Ancients paladin is under no obligation from his Oath to sacrifice himself for another. He isn't bound by duty or honor. And, one of his tenets SPECIFICALLY states that he is to preserve himself. I'd argue that a paladin that "dies with his boots on" is actually violating his oath.

And, yes, I gotta go with 5ekyu on this one. That "overwhelming force" suddenly morphed into a dozen or so bad guys that, a couple of levels later, turned into a standard encounter. A truly "overwhelming force" would be a 10:1 advantage where they have absolutely no reason to talk to you. They might talk to you for giggles, but, they certainly don't have to.

Which, to me, better resembles the dragon situation where the smallest adult dragon can drop the PC in a single round with average damage. To me, that's overwhelming.

 

[S'mon]

You and I clearly have a difference of opinion on what "overehelming" means.

Overwhelming - no significant chance to win the battle. Pal-7 vs adult blue dragon I'd count as 'overwhelming', and probably about the same as what our level 1 PCs faced. Captain America (sans Mjolnir) vs Thanos would be a similar overwhelming threat.

Edit: Maybe you misunderstood me. We didn't fight the bandits; if we had done we would have died, as far as I could see.

 

[Hussar]

Why is Captain America the only archetype for paladins? Do you really think that Captain America is an Oath of Ancients paladin?