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

[Oofta]

Ummm, how can the player know that? Is it common in the campaign? Do many overpowering monsters do that sort of thing? Why would a hungry dragon take that offer rather than, you know, eating a crunchy appetizer and then taking the doggy bag home?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In 5e that is probably hunk dory. Now in my S&W game that is now a fallen Paladin but they still have to be lawful(good) and that was at best a neutral act and possibly chaotic(evil).

But honestly the DM springing that on the player is kind of weak. How can he possibly survive and not be a coward?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would walk away from your table so fast if you did that.

How I play my character is up to no one but me. THAT is the one thing the DM has no control over by both rule and social contract.

It doesn't change how you play your character, for the DM to change that one word on your character sheet. The DM is in charge of playing all of the gods and the cosmological constants, and your alignment is supposed to reflect the character's relationship with those things. If you're actually evil, then writing "Good" on your sheet does not change that.

The DM isn't telling you how to play. The DM is telling you how the universe will treat you, based on your actions.

Not that it's particularly relevant to the topic at hand, I mean. Back in the day, there was a big problem with players writing "Chaotic Neutral" and using it as an excuse to play evil. That isn't really what's happening here, though. I think the player was still acting in good faith.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh man I would have loved to have this encounter with my current CN Barbarian. But he would absolutely die before letting anyone, even a dragon, give him ultimatums.

But I think character deaths when fitting can be fun.

(I admit this has nothing to do with how I would handle this situation with this paladin)

Actually, it does. It sounds like the CN Barbarian has a strong sense of personal honor. Meaning that, while he doesn't necessarily feel like he has a duty to anyone else, he would rather die than lose respect for himself or allow anyone else to disrespect him.

Meanwhile, we are discussing a Paladin with no sense of honor at all and no sense of duty to the weak and helpless as if that was normal.

 

[Dausuul]

In 5e that is probably hunk dory. Now in my S&W game that is now a fallen Paladin but they still have to be lawful(good) and that was at best a neutral act and possibly chaotic(evil).

It is so bizarre to me that anyone would even consider applying "evil" to "I choose not to gamble my life at a thousand-to-one odds." Neutral? Yes, definitely. A failure to live up to paladin ideals? Depends on what you consider those ideals to be, but in many cases, yes. Evil? Absolutely not.

In all editions of D&D, there have been different levels of punishment for paladin misbehavior. "Fallen paladin" is the ultimate punishment. Applying it in this situation is like imposing the death penalty for jaywalking.

 

[CleverNickName]

Meanwhile, we are discussing a Paladin with no sense of honor at all and no sense of duty to the weak and helpless as if that was normal.

That seems to be the case, doesn't it? The character in this thread sounds more like a fighter who makes weird promises...not a paladin. To me, anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

But telling me how to play my character? Not. On. The. Freaking. Table.

He didn't tell you how to play your character. He's telling you how you have played your character.

How you want to respond to that is the players call. Essentially, you are being challenged to step up to narrative character driven play. The player could decide, "This has been a moment of Epiphany for my character. I realize that my former idealistic views lacked nuance, and now I'm going to abandon them and take up a new life outlook." Or the player could decide, "Now that the immediate pressure of the situation is removed, the character can only look on what he did with a sense of shame and horror. He decides that he must do something to atone for what he has done, and radically change the way he sees himself (penance) and interacts with the world (reconcilliation)." Or the player could decide, "In a fit of grief and shame, the character would commit suicide."

Depending on how you responded to that, and how you played, the character's alignment might change back (or not). And that could be a great story (or not). But either way, no one is telling you how to play the character.

 

[CleverNickName]

An interesting plot twist might be:

Six months go by, and then the NPC returns triumphant, wearing armor made from the hide of that blue dragon. When asked about it, he tells the tale of how he used a cool head and a silver tongue to convince the dragon to let him live, and then killed the beast by dropping a giant boulder on its head while it slept. Now a paladin himself, he wears the dragon's hide as a reminder to always be calm, and always be brave, even in the face of impossible odds.​

​

He's not angry at the paladin who handed him over to the dragon--to the contrary, he's grateful. "If you hadn't sent me on my first quest, I never could have become the hero that I am today." And then the paladin in blue armor rides off into the sunset on his summoned steed. The players will occasionally hear news and rumors of this "blue knight" as they travel the realm, often showing up to fix the things that they broke and to clean up the messes that they made, until their own paladin shows him up by completing an epic quest of his own.​

I think that having the paladin "fall" would be a bit too harsh, but letting him get away with it completely would be a bit too lenient. So this example wouldn't "punish" the paladin directly, and wouldn't strip him of any of his abilities, but wouldn't let him glamorize or ignore it either.

 

[Oofta]

How I view this in relationship to alignment

• Evil: the paladin is not confronted by the dragon but is instead sent a message by the dragon indicating that if he murders the NPC then and there, the dragon will owe him a favor at some point in the future.
• Neutral: The paladin thinks they have a reasonable chance to win but turns over the NPC anyway when confronted by the dragon.
• Stupid: The paladin pulls his sword and says "have at thee" knowing full well that neither he nor the NPC will live and that the world will be more likely to end because they committed suicide.
• Any: faced with a no-win situation, they choose the least bad option. Depending on their alignment they may feel guilty, feel like they need to do atonement or swear vengeance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh man I would have loved to have this encounter with my current CN Barbarian. But he would absolutely die before letting anyone, even a dragon, give him ultimatums.

I can just picture it: "NO! You can't have him! I'm saving him in case I get hungry later..."