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

[pemerton]

D&D is not that sort of game.

I'm under the impression that 5e is meant to be rather flexible, and is in fact played in a wide range of ways. I don't think what @TaranTheWanderer posted crosses any line. That sort of thing was pretty common in 2nd ed AD&D play, and without the GM-player conversation preceding it - which suggested the dream sequence only in response to a "no, but . . ." answer from the player about whether the PC had honoured his oath.

 

[Wiseblood]

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

It depends. Did you meet the child at the Overlook hotel? Is it even a child?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Most people as well

 

[5ekyu]

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?

It was described as the result of a strong persuasion, so, the implication is a relatively high DX and while that could be imagined that it have been a strong roll vs an easy check... no specifics were provided that would imply it was easy or moderate.

The statement also shows the GM chose to use checks, not just fiat without roll. Could we imagine the gm suddenly changes his resolution method sure but no evidence suggests that as expected.

Follow-up check rules specically for social resolutions in 5e have a specific call- out to trying to further influence after a check under a section titled "repeat?". Its gist us pushing further is unlikely to succeed and may anger the target. "...upsetting or angering the subject creature, potentially shifting...towards hostility."

Obvious, a GM can choose anything at anytime, but imagining reversals of previous patterns without any reason to expect that is rather specious. It's possible the GM could have had the dragon agree if the paladin could win a dance off. We just have no indication it would be expected or a reasonable thing for the character to consider.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep, but I think it's a fairly silly claim to think that good and evil would exist in this without the existence of humans, which would be required for it to be some sort of objective thing. The big bang sure as hell didn't decide on what good and evil were, and God only did so in the context of humans with the tree of knowledge, not the universe.

Humans have decided what is moral and what isn't. Humans have decided that a particular thing is both moral and immoral and fought over it. Animals don't have this hang-up. So humans will continue to argue about whether morals are objective or subjective, and continue to kill each other over it. ::

 

[Maxperson]

Please stop threadcrapping.

So, he's not. You're pretty new here, so you may not be aware, but he's got a schtick that's pretty amusing. Paladins, gnomes, rapiers and katanas. When he posts about those, be amused, pat him on the head and just move on to the next post.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

With metagame knowledge of knowing you rolled well and the dragon still comes back with, "okay, give me the NPC and you can live" I think it's justifiable for the player to believe the situation is a no-win situation

In the fiction with no metagame knowledge the Paladin's acts are definitely unjustified IMO. He still had some negotiating and persuading to do before giving up.

I think this split between what the metagame tells us being different than what the fiction tells us is the cause of a lot of the disagreement.

 

[Wiseblood]

So, he's not. You're pretty new here, so you may not be aware, but he's got a schtick that's pretty amusing. Paladins, gnomes, rapiers and katanas. When he posts about those, be amused, pat him on the head and just move on to the next post.

Too true! In fact I know exactly who you are referring to without having to research. Lol.

We also engage in gentle ribbing Lowkey13 is a good sport. Even when we bring up dual rapier wielding gnome paladins.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep, but I think it's a fairly silly claim to think that good and evil would exist in this without the existence of humans, which would be required for it to be some sort of objective thing. The big bang sure as hell didn't decide on what good and evil were, and God only did so in the context of humans with the tree of knowledge, not the universe.

Humans have decided what is moral and what isn't. Humans have decided that a particular thing is both moral and immoral and fought over it. Animals don't have this hang-up. So humans will continue to argue about whether morals are objective or subjective, and continue to kill each other over it. ::

Would numbers exist without humans?

 

[Maxperson]

Would numbers exist without humans?

No. Those are also a human construct that we use to help us understand things.