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

[FrogReaver]

@Yardiff

The OP, with the relevant phrase highlighted.

During our session tonight, the party's paladin got in trouble. He was carrying an injured NPC to safety. Unfortunately, an adult dragon cornered him.
"Give me that man, and you can live. I hunger" it said. I had hoped he would stare it down with a bit of god-fuelled determination.
"OK" Said the paladin, and the dragon flew off with the screaming man.
The player admitted, 'I wanted to live'. He figured he should live to fight another day (and continue on the world-saving adventure the party are part way through).
I don't want to punish the player so much that he drops out of the game, but I think there have to be repercussions (ours is not a slapstick murderhobo game).
He is 7th level with a level of warlock (! I know...)
How would you handle this. If he becomes an oathbreaker, does that replace his previous paladin levels, so he becomes a 7th level oathbreaker?
Is that too punishing?
If he becomes an oathbreaker, I plan to talk to him about taking a vow to find a way back into his gods good graces, such as by returning to slay the dragon AND find resurrection for the dead man.

 

[Campbell]

We can debate all we want to about subjective versus objective morality here in meat space. However Dungeons and Dragons does not exist in meat space. It exists in a fiction where morality is ancient and definitively objective. The world view of the knights which forms the basis of the Paladin archetype was absolutely based on duty, sacrifice, and objective morality. Capturing that archetype in play is absolutely about objective morality.

It is made more difficult by our own most likely subjective morality or at least different understandings of objective morality. That's alright though because our goals as players and Dungeon Masters should not be to solve moral questions, only to play an exciting game where the story involves fantasy morality.

 

[Yardiff]

@Yardiff

The OP, with the relevant phrase highlighted.

Guess I was wrong.

 

[FrogReaver]

Guess I was wrong.

But now that you realize you were, will you be changing your opinion?

 

[Yardiff]

But now that you realize you were, will you be changing your opinion?

Not really I think the player just gave up after rolling really good for the first persuasion roll.

 

[FrogReaver]

We can debate all we want to about subjective versus objective morality here in meat space. However Dungeons and Dragons does not exist in meat space. It exists in a fiction where morality is ancient and definitively objective. The world view of the knights which forms the basis of the Paladin archetype was absolutely based on duty, sacrifice, and objective morality. Capturing that archetype in play is absolutely about objective morality.

It is made more difficult by our own most likely subjective morality or at least different understandings of objective morality. That's alright though because our goals as players and Dungeon Masters should not be to solve moral questions, only to play an exciting game where the story involves fantasy morality.

Objective vs Subjective Morality is a better topic to argue about than most of our normal ones like whether you can use a hand crossbow and a shield at the same time

 

[FrogReaver]

Not really I think the player just gave up after rolling really good for the first persuasion roll.

Just be careful. It's typically true that when facts inform our opinions they change when the facts change. When we have already made up our mind and are just looking for facts to support our opinions then it don't matter what facts are given.

 

[Maxperson]

So do you believe morality is based on society or the individual?

It's both. Individual morality isn't going to help you, though, if it goes against society. Society sets morals at the macro level. Individuals have their own morality at the micro level.

 

[Maxperson]

Objective vs Subjective Morality is a better topic to argue about than most of our normal ones like whether you can use a hand crossbow and a shield at the same time

LOL Absolutely.

 

[pemerton]

And yet if they were called "stinky poo plants", would they?
Wittgenstein suggested not

I don't think that's a very fair account of Wittgenstein. He has solipsistic tendencies - in his later as well as earlier work - but doesn't really argue for relativism. I think the most interesting account of the implications of later Wittgenstein relevant to the present discussion is Peter Winch's "Understanding a Primiative Society" - it cashes out the notion of meaning being the product of a "form of life" in a way that relates it to social science methodology. But whatever exactly a "form of life" is, it's not something that is chosen or decided, and nor is it the product of beliefs (given that, on this account, it is what establishes the content of beliefs and other mental states).

If a lion could talk, we would not understand him. And I'm not sure we can speculate about what he might be saying. The incommensurability of forms of life is meant to be very deep.