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

[Blue]

I didn't tell you how to play your character - you already did that.

If a player has their character do evil things then they write "evil" on the character sheet.

So if an NPC acts a particular way under duress, it is now canon that they must act that way all the time? I can change the basic nature of anyone in your world by making them act a particular way under the threat of unstoppable, imminent death? If I force someone to tell a joke under believable threat of death, they are forever a joker?

And your attempt to write in evil was explicitly to how to tell me to play my character in the future, from the first post I responded to. Don't try to backpedal.

Sorry, that shows as much knowledge of how people work as the idea of a DM breaking the social contract and telling player how to run their character will go over well. At least your responses are consistent.

 

[Imaculata]

Honestly, the more I think about the situation I think the DM didn't think through his Dragon encounter with the Paladin before putting it into the game. The Paladin did the most logical thing which should have been something the DM expected and instead it flat out surprised the DM. Now the DM is wanting to severly punish the player for making the best of 2 bad choices in a scenario that never should have made it into the game to begin with.

I disagree. First of all, I don't think the DM is under any obligation to set up encounters with predictable outcomes. Being surprised by your players is one of the fun things about being a DM.

Second, I think this moral conundrum is a perfect roleplaying opportunity that the DM presented to this paladin. I think it is a fantastic when a DM plays an evil dragon to its strengths, which doesn't always have to be combat. Having the dragon make such an evil proposal is a stroke of genius.

Honestly, I think this is a fantastic outcome. I would use this opportunity to introduce other npc's who were forced into the same impossible choice by this dragon. Show the player the various ways in which others have dealt with this dragon's sinister choice. Have him meet a knight who feels shamed by making the same choice, and wants to reclaim his honor. Have him meet the wife of a knight who chose the exact opposite, and died horribly while she was made to watch. There's so much to explore here roleplaying wise. I don't think the DM should make a judgement which was the correct choice. Instead, explore the topic through npc's.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. First of all, I don't think the DM is under any obligation to set up encounters with predictable outcomes. Being surprised by your players is one of the fun things about being a DM.

Second, I think this moral conundrum is a perfect roleplaying opportunity that the DM presented to this paladin. I think it is a fantastic when a DM plays an evil dragon to its strengths, which doesn't always have to be combat. Having the dragon make such an evil proposal is a stroke of genius.

Honestly, I think this is a fantastic outcome. I would use this opportunity to introduce other npc's who were forced into the same impossible choice by this dragon. Show the player the various ways in which others have dealt with this dragon's sinister choice. Have him meet a knight who feels shamed by making the same choice, and wants to reclaim his honor. Have him meet the wife of a knight who chose the exact opposite, and died horribly while she was made to watch. There's so much to explore here roleplaying wise.

You disagree that it shouldn't have been put into the game altogether. That's fine. But that's not the scenario I was talking about. I specifically was talking about the scenario where the whole point of the encounter wasn't to set something else up, but to simply test the paladin to see if he would die or give up an innocent. Obviously your post adds the scenario as part of the introduction to a greater scenario. That's more okay. Though probably still not fair as no player when put in what they feel is a no-win scenario is going to feel like they lost honor by taking the best of 2 bad choices.

 

[Imaculata]

I specifically was talking about the scenario where the whole point of the encounter wasn't to set something else up, but to simply test the paladin to see if he would die or give up an innocent. Obviously your post adds the scenario as part of the introduction to a greater scenario. That's more okay. Though probably still not fair as no player when put in what they feel is a no-win scenario is going to feel like they lost honor by taking the best of 2 bad choices.

Why does a paladin even have an oath if you're not going to do anything with it? I think it is great to give a player two bad choices. That is not to say that there aren't other options btw. But as a moral dliemma, I love it.

I've played a character that was in a similar situation. An undead dragon was about to kill several party members, and my barbarian had very few hitpoints left. So does he flee and live to fight another day, or does he die heroically?

He decided to throw off his armor and charge the dragon in the nude. He would gladly die to protect his friends, it would have been a heroic way to die.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

In this case, if I was DM I would house-rule to take away his spellcasting, smiting, and auras until he seeks atonement, minimum 1 day. If he does it again, minimum 1 week or a month, then forever.
Converting him to Oathbreaker is too much, unless he wanted to (he's also a warlock after all)

Wait... making the player become an Oathbreaker is too harsh, but taking away all the abilities that make him a paladin until he atones isn't? At least as an Oathbreaker he could still contribute to the party.

Nothing. No punishment. You run a slapstick murderhobo game. Keep the morality play out of it except or unless it’s done comedically.

In the OP, it specifically says this is NOT a murderhobo game.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It's kinda funny how much earlier edition baggage holds over into the paladins of 5e.

Being a coward is not breaking your oath necessarily. Oath of Vengeance paladins wouldn't really have much of an issue here. Probably take it as a reason to go hunt down that dragon and slay it properly - thus vengeance - but pointlessly commit suicide by dragon? Not so much. My Oath of Conquest paladin might even strike a deal with the dragon.

Paladins are no longer the Captain America's of D&D

This. So much this.

Did the player or character know that staring it down was even an option? An adult dragon is pretty close to an impossible opponent both in terms of intimidation and combat unless you're high tier.
Otherwise, it would just have looked like the DM dropped an impossible choice on the player: Either your character dies, or you break your oath.
Where did the dragon come from? Was it one that they were trying to escape from previous interactions or similar, or did a random Adult Dragon just show up the threaten a level 7 character? Was the rest of the party close enough that the dragon might be threatening the paladin with their deaths as well?
OK. I'm not seeing any murder committed by the paladin. As others have asked: what is their actual oath?
It doesn't sound like an easy choice, but I can see some paladin archetypes making the choice to save the world at the cost of one life without breaking that oath.
OK. Lot of talk about "becoming an oathbreaker" that seems to be talking about the paladin subclass. I think you need to think about that a bit:
Becoming an Oathbreaker is not generally what happens if a paladin slips a bit, or makes a bad choice. Oathbreaker is not even what happens if the paladin falls to the point that they lose their oath-given abilities.
An Oathbreaker Paladin is one who has not only willingly and unrepentantly broken their oath, but also rejected the concept of being bound by any oaths or rules of behaviour. - often including thing like party loyalty and suchlike. There is a reason that its almost exclusively for NPCs.

As others have said: talk to the players. If nothing else it may appear to them that you just forced them into a no-win, all-lose scenario, so you may need to reassure them that you weren't just deliberately trying to stew them over.

Also this.

@firsrkyne we can't really make a judgment until you tell us more about this character, namely what Oath and Warlock Patron they are. But I'm of the opinion that unless this was a 180 degree turn for this character, they shouldn't be outright punished IC. Given a stern warning at the most. If it was a 180 turn, before placing mechanical sanctions on the character, have amother talk with their player and check as to where they envision their character going. And depending kn how they played the chracter so far, this may actually be perfectly in-character and you don't have to do anything.

Also, don't create impossible encounters without telegraphing that there is an out. That's just sadistic DMing.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As a DM I'd do very little. Get the player to check the oath I suppose.

There could be reputation repercussions, but even then, a dragon is fearsome.

The other characters and friendly NPCs might have an opinion, which some might air.

The player might have their character feel conflicted, ashamed, etc... It could be a good opportunity to update a flaw or scrutinize an ideal.

Actual players? Heh, yeah there'd be some Monte Python and memes thrown about.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I don't plan specific outs with my encounters, I reckon that's up to the players to figure out. That's what I'd want if I were a player, open slather freedom to respond in character to whatever encountered.

And sure, if I were playing a LG Paladin of Devotion in impossible circumstances (very rare imo) I could even find myself surrendering to evil - and then play out the torment of failure.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So the last he saw was the dragon flying off with it's screaming meal?

No body, no murder.

Let the party get a few more levels and forget all about this incident.

Then have the "victim" reappear as a powerful ally of the dragon. He's weirdly both grateful to the paladin, and seeking vengeance because, you know, the paladin fed him to a dragon.

EDIT:

"My Patron made me do it!"

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not sure we know enough about the situation. What was the level of the paladin?

He is 7th level with a level of warlock