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

[Wiseblood]

As Oofta noted, it is not at all clear there was a Good option available. This doesn't seem to have been a case of, "There is a Good option, but I don't want to pay the cost." Dying for a man that he cannot save does not reduce the pain and suffering in the world. It makes no life in the world better - so it isn't itself a good act. Barring raise dead, doing so severely limits the Good the paladin can do in the future.

What we are really talking about is the paladin following an expected behavior pattern, aka acting like an honorable knight. Honor and rules aren't about Good. They are about Law. I will accept that the Paladin may not have done what folks would expect from an honorable knight.

So, in traditional terms, the GM pitted the Law against Good. It was the Law that he should fight a fight he could not win. But surviving serves the Good afterwards. From this perspective, this is Kobyashi Maru - a challenge the Paladin cannot win.

I think you are using the word Good when you mean desirable. Conflating outcome with outlook.

 

[Wiseblood]

I earlier held up Steve Rogers as a familiar pop culture example of a Paladin. But you can make a legitimate complaint depending on your real world philosophy that Rogers is lawful stupid. I mean, the very first time we meet Rogers he's fighting a bully twice his size despite not having any chance of winning, and he refuses to give up and keeps saying stuff like, "You want more. I can keep this up all day."

And sometimes his 'lawful stupidity' (if you want to think of it that way) gets more serious. In 'Infinity War', Vision makes the statement that for the good of the universe he has to be killed, and Rogers vetoes this plan because it involves making a dishonorable choice. Rogers essentially says, "Saving the universe is less important than maintaining our moral integrity." This is exactly the criticism people are making of attempting to defend the helpless against the dragon rather than making a compromise with it.

Rogers idealism versus Tony's pragmatism is a huge element of what makes the drama of Avengers so good. If Rogers is a utilitarian pragmatist, he just isn't the same character and there isn't a lot of drama because what are we really fighting over? What makes Steve's presentation so good, is that even though he's clearly this lawful good Paragon, he's not lawful stupid, or at least to the extent that he is, it's not stupid in a simplistic stereotypical manner.

My personal feeling is that at some level paragons like Rogers are offensive, not just because of 'lawful stupid', but because by upholding a higher standard they imply the rest of us aren't meeting it. And contemplating that we might be falling short makes a lot of people offended.

While I am having fun you might not be. Let me know if you want me to lay off.

The paladin didn’t just make a mistake. The paladin used someone who was ostensibly in their care or custody as a bargaining chip.

A Paladin, a Dragon and an injured man take a vote to see what’s for dinner.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I earlier held up Steve Rogers as a familiar pop culture example of a Paladin. But you can make a legitimate complaint depending on your real world philosophy that Rogers is lawful stupid. I mean, the very first time we meet Rogers he's fighting a bully twice his size despite not having any chance of winning, and he refuses to give up and keeps saying stuff like, "You want more. I can keep this up all day."

And sometimes his 'lawful stupidity' (if you want to think of it that way) gets more serious. In 'Infinity War', Vision makes the statement that for the good of the universe he has to be killed, and Rogers vetoes this plan because it involves making a dishonorable choice. Rogers essentially says, "Saving the universe is less important than maintaining our moral integrity." This is exactly the criticism people are making of attempting to defend the helpless against the dragon rather than making a compromise with it.

Rogers idealism versus Tony's pragmatism is a huge element of what makes the drama of Avengers so good. If Rogers is a utilitarian pragmatist, he just isn't the same character and there isn't a lot of drama because what are we really fighting over? What makes Steve's presentation so good, is that even though he's clearly this lawful good Paragon, he's not lawful stupid, or at least to the extent that he is, it's not stupid in a simplistic stereotypical manner.

My personal feeling is that at some level paragons like Rogers are offensive, not just because of 'lawful stupid', but because by upholding a higher standard they imply the rest of us aren't meeting it. And contemplating that we might be falling short makes a lot of people offended.

Yep. One reaction to finding out you are falling short of an ideal is to destroy the ideal. If you can't meet the standard...lower it and tear down those who are making you realize you are falling short.

As Lemmy said "Nobody wants to hear the truth, too much like taking blame."

 

[Wiseblood]

Yep. One reaction to finding out you are falling short of an ideal is to destroy the ideal. If you can't meet the standard...lower it and tear down those who are making you realize you are falling short.

As Lemmy said "Nobody wants to hear the truth, too much like taking blame."

You might have an 18/100 wisdom.

 

[Celebrim]

While I am having fun you might not be. Let me know if you want me to lay off.

I can keep this up all day.

The paladin didn’t just make a mistake. The paladin used someone who was ostensibly in their care or custody as a bargaining chip.

A Paladin, a Dragon and an injured man take a vote to see what’s for dinner.

We are in full agreement. That's why even though this was a passive choice, I think it goes low enough on the evil scale to warrant loss of Paladinhood.

 

[Umbran]

I think you are using the word Good when you mean desirable. Conflating outcome with outlook.

Nope. I'm thinking "Good" in the sense of prior editions with Paladins - there's Good and Evil, and separate Law and Chaos, and they aren't the same.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Dying for a man that he cannot save does not reduce the pain and suffering in the world. It makes no life in the world better - so it isn't itself a good act. Barring raise dead, doing so severely limits the Good the paladin can do in the future.

What we are really talking about is the paladin following an expected behavior pattern, aka acting like an honorable knight. Honor and rules aren't about Good. They are about Law. I will accept that the Paladin may not have done what folks would expect from an honorable knight.

So, in traditional terms, the GM pitted the Law against Good.

This looks to me like a conflict between a deontological, or rules-based, conception of morality, and a consequentialist conception of morality.

Example of rules-based = Ten Commandments
Example of consequentialist = greatest happiness for the greatest number

Both are Good, they're just different ways of thinking about the Good.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In D&D, deontological is probably Lawful Good and consequentialist is Neutral Good.

 

[firstkyne]

What's his oath. It depends if he actually broke it.

Oath of the Ancients

Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.
Shelter the Light. Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren.
Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can't preserve it in the world.
Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.

 

[Wiseblood]

Nope. I'm thinking "Good" in the sense of prior editions with Paladins - there's Good and Evil, and separate Law and Chaos, and they aren't the same.

I reread your post and still feel it ambiguous. You state that the player was given no good options. I never felt that the options were A) give the dragon this guy or B) Fight and die. If those were the only options then that is bad.

Don’t try to think outside of the box, that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize there is no box.

(Well, that guy won’t live in despair for long) screams in the distance