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

[Wiseblood]

a) such things are typically a special ability, rather than at the whims of the DM; in fact, a PC can use a special ability to attempt to influence the way another PC is feeling, but under other circumstances it is bad form for another player to try to dictate how a player plays their character

b) note how the player gets a saving throw; it is the dice that are deciding, not the DM

c) even in the case of a failed saving throw, the player still has the ability to decide how the character feels within the limits of the effect; for example, the 5e frightened condition allows the character to continue fighting, albeit with disadvantage, if the player decides the character is both afraid and angry

A) Fear is what you are feeling. The whims of the DM? They can do a lot. You make them sound like subjects in someone else’s kingdom.

B) rhetoric: The DM caused you to roll that save. The DM decided, the dice are consultants.

C) The frightened condition is a condition that is imposed to create a specific set of constraints and disadvantages. It may or may not involve you actually being afraid.

Feeling other feelings is unimportant fear is what you must act on.

 

[5ekyu]

I largely agree. It's just that D&D is not that sort of game. I happen to love that sort of game. Masks, Monsterhearts, Vampire - The Requiem Second Edition, Exalted Third Edition, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, and Pendragon are some of my favorite games.

To me, it comes down to the power balance.

In 5e core rules as opposed to reality the GM *is * directing thecrest of the world and the player is directing the character. Unless either is using some ability such as dominate or TK etc, those are solid divisions. IRL while how you react or feel in the immediacy are not always yours to conttol, neither are the events around you always directed by a single " oversight" (unless you ascribe to certain belief systems.)

If 5e core, vs some of those other games, there is little to no "override" to either sides authority outside the in-game fiction. Thrre is no overt scene edit control type of mechanic - just like there is no GM telling you how you feel (outside of certain status effects.)

To me those two things go together... in my experience most games that embrace one embrace thr other - players get degrees of authorship beyond their PC and GMs get more direct hooks into PC heads. Its because these are both signs or symptoms of setting aside opening cracks in that overt authorship vs action/reactions in fiction.

Obviously, regardless of any game's core rules, the degree yo which any of these are seen in play is a table side thing.

While our group has played games with overt plot points and scdne edit available- we generally eschewed its use in play. By we, I should say "they" the player just nrver used it even when brought up. The only time it hot "used" was when they were trying to decide "oh, did we remember to bring the macguffin from the safe? Nobody said... " and then some asked "for a plot point..."

Our group just tends to hit issues like planning "and then we exit out the back. Wait, is there a back door ? Is it lovked?" by doing risky recon before to determine for status instead of making sure we had enough gimmick points to scdne edit in an open door when we needed it.

Its flavor, taste, preference.

That's also why we gravitate now to more split authority games.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

No. This is bad. I

It's just that D&D is not that sort of game. I happen to love that sort of game. Masks, Monsterhearts, Vampire - The Requiem Second Edition, Exalted Third Edition, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, and Pendragon are some of my favorite games.

I find this funny. I also see a lot of this on these boards. Translation: Your way is not the way I would do it and is therefore bad. There is only one way to play 5th edition and if you don't play it this way, take it to another gaming system.

It's really bizarre. I've been Role Playing many systems for 30 years and have seen a variety of play-styles in all systems.

But since my opinion is "Bad", I will direct my comments to the other people on the board. It was originally directed at the OP, after all.

It's not the same thing.

......

How the character feels is the player's purview in D&D, not the DM's.

I agree to an extent.

1. as I mentioned above, discuss with the player and find out how they think their character would feel about what happen. Also, remind them to do this, in the case of a Paladin, in the context of their Oaths which should inform most of their decisions and actions - and by extension their feelings of how they perceive them. It is perfectly acceptable (at most tables) to talk Out of Character to figure out how a character might be dealing with heavy issues.

2. If they say they feel they broke the Oath and felt helpless to do anything else you, as a dm, can tell them, "ok, then I'd like to explore that with you in-game." (I'm pretty sure I mentioned this in the previous post)

3. As a DM, it's your responsibility to challenge players and characters. All challenges do not have to be based on CR. Challenging a PCs world view and having them dig deep into their character is a DMs job, IMO.

4. Most people who witness someone something traumatic - watching someone being killed by a dragon probably qualifies - might suffer some PTSD. I think it's fair to play it out. Especially if the Player has expressed as much. People have dreams and they can't control them. That's life. The PC is free to do what they want with it when they are awake. The Player is even free to say to the DM that they don't want to explore that aspect of the story anymore.

 

[FrogReaver]

1. No.

2. Don't curse. Vulgarity is the refuge of scoundrels. Thanks!

Sounds too Paladiny.

 

[Fanaelialae]

A) Fear is what you are feeling. The whims of the DM? They can do a lot. You make them sound like subjects in someone else’s kingdom.

B) rhetoric: The DM caused you to roll that save. The DM decided, the dice are consultants.

C) The frightened condition is a condition that is imposed to create a specific set of constraints and disadvantages. It may or may not involve you actually being afraid.

Feeling other feelings is unimportant fear is what you must act on.

I see, so when the PCs encounter a smiling child you require them to roll a Wisdom save vs happiness, do you?

 

[pemerton]

Um, society determines what is and is not moral

I hope you realise that this is a highly controversial claim, in the sense that many - perhaps most English-speaking, at least - moral philosophers believe that moral truth is independent of social preference.

 

[pemerton]

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

Probalby not, but weren't you accepting Cap;s relevance with your Bucky story?

 

[pemerton]

JUst teasing this one out.

You realize that when I say, "kill himself", I mean challenge the dragon in any way? That any challenge to the dragon, that "forces the dragon's hand" means that the paladin will die.

Yes, I'm not being overly pedantic and writing out "paladin should continue to talk to the dragon and find some way to save the man until the dragon gets fed up and eats the paladin" every time. I'm just shortening it to "paladin commits suicide".

Again, remember, the paladin has NO chance of survival here. No chance of winning this fight. None. We effectively have put a gun in his ear and said, "if you don't leave, you die".

As I understand the situation the paladin has persuaded the dragon that he, the paladin, should live. The dragon wants the NPC instead. It seems to me that, at that point, the paladin has at least two options I can see:

* Insist that, if the dragon lets him go which it is disposed to do (having been persuaded), that the NPC is coming too. That presumably would require another CHA-type check.

* Insist that the dragon has to go through him to get the NPC. The dragon has already decided that it would be irrational to kill the paladin (the paladin persuaded the dragon of this) and so, it it wants the NPC, can get the NPC without killing the paladin. And I would think that this declaratio by the paladin itself has the chance of cowing the dragon, not in the sense of making it afraid for its life or wellbeing, but in the sense of emphasising the paladin's determination to save the world which was the reason the dragon spared the paladin in the first place. (This would be similar to the Kas scenario that I posted upthread.)

You seem to be taking it as given that the GM will have the dragon kill the paladin even though the player succeeded at a CHA (Persuasion) check to avoid that. I'm not sure why you are doing this.

 

[pemerton]

As far as everyone stating that all paladins must be lawful stupid death before imagined dishonor types that must sacrifice themselves in futile attempts to save everyone: it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not impossible. I think the whole "martyrdom with no possible perceived gain" theory offensively glorifies suicide. Paladins in this edition aren't particularly powerful compared to other classes. The rules specifically allow for minor transgressions. If you tell people how they must run their PC, don't be surprised if no one plays a paladin.

I haven't seen anyone telling anyone else how to play their PC.

There are posters expressing their views about what a morality of duty and ethic of honour requires. That seemed to be what the thread was about, and so doesn't seem too outrageous.

As I've already posted, I play paladi PCs and GM games with paladin PCs. I've never had players not wanting to play these sorts of characters. I don't find that it causes any problems, even in party-play games like 4e D&D.

 

[pemerton]

the social attack is one that had already been tried and took them on a strong result from (it seems) everyone dies to half die.

That seems to place nobody dies at a significantly higher difficukty.

Are there rules in 5e that prevent follow-on attempts? And do we know what the DC was for the initial attempt? Maybe a total of 15 was enough - in which case maybe there's a 50/50 of succeeding on the follow-up.

And if the player (as his/her PC) makes a good argument for sparing the NPC also, isn't the GM allowed to "say yes" without calling for a roll?