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

[CleverNickName]

"Winning" doesn't have to mean "defeat in combat." I put extremely dangerous monsters in my dungeons and on my random encounter tables all the time, and my players know it. Whenever I tell them to roll initiative, there is always a very real possibility they might have to run, surrender, negotiate, barter, sneak, etc. to avoid being killed. It's a big, dangerous world out there.

I try not to be a jerk about it--I always provide at least two ways out of every tight spot, and I give them the benefit of the doubt when they try some wacky antics to escape, and I give them half (or even full) XP for getting past the monster whether they slay it or not. And I'll drop some pretty obvious hints (or even break character) to warn them about foes that are beyond their ability to slay. But if they don't take those warnings seriously, and insist on combat as the only solution, well...they have to own that choice.

-----

Rewriting Tolkien as D&D is too much fun.

"A Balrog...a demon of the Ancient World," Gandalf says grimly. "This foe is beyond any of you...run!"

"Nah. John Tolkien is a good DM, he wouldn't give us any monsters that we couldn't defeat," Legolas says smugly, pulling an arrow from his quiver. "I ready my longbow. Who's got the initiative?"

"But--" Gandalf says incredulously.

"Don't be such a coward, Gandalf." Aragorn draws his swords, not even looking at the wizard. "You're just an NPC anyway. Why do you hate fun?"

"I can't wait to level up!" Gimli says, kissing his bicep. "You've got a copy of my magic item wishlist, right John?"

Frodo pats Gandalf on the arm. "It's okay," the hobbit says with a sigh. "I always suspected that Sam and I would have to make it to Mordor without them. Race you to the Bridge of Kazhad Dum?"

 

[FrogReaver]

There are two moral questions the situation brings up:
1. What is the moral thing to do in a situation where it's nearly certainly going to be either you and another dies or just the other dies.

In this case the moral thing to do is for you to choose to live.

2. What is the moral thing to do in a situation where someone demands you choose to either give them the other person to kill or he will kill you both?

You probe the situation to see if there are other options first. After the probing if you realize that you are in situation 1 or if the situation becomes situation 1 then you know what to do. If you find another option that might save you both then you try that option.

There are also a number of gaming philosophy questions the scenario brings up
A. Should the DM who controls both what encounters you face and the nature of said opponents force a a situation like 1 above. What about 2.

It seems to me that 1 is off limits entirely. 2 is an interesting situation that I can see being played out in the game.

B. Is it the DM's fault if he places potential no-win situations in the world and the players charge headfirst into them even though they could have avoided them.

I don't think so. That's on the players..

 

[FrogReaver]

"Winning" doesn't have to mean "defeat in combat." I put extremely dangerous monsters in my dungeons and on my random encounter tables all the time, and my players know it. Whenever I tell them to roll initiative, there is always a very real possibility they might have to run, surrender, negotiate, barter, sneak, etc. to avoid being killed. It's a big, dangerous world out there.

I try not to be a jerk about it--I always provide at least two ways out of every tight spot, and I give them the benefit of the doubt when they try some wacky antics to escape, and I give them half (or even full) XP for getting past the monster whether they slay it or not. And I'll drop some pretty obvious hints (or even break character) to warn them about foes that are beyond their ability to slay. But if they don't take those warnings seriously, and insist on combat as the only solution, well...they have to own that choice.

-----

Rewriting Tolkien as D&D is too much fun.

"A Balrog...a demon of the Ancient World," Gandalf says grimly. "This foe is beyond any of you...run!"

"Nah. John Tolkien is a good DM, he wouldn't give us any monsters that we couldn't defeat," Legolas says smugly, pulling an arrow from his quiver. "I ready my longbow. Who's got the initiative?"

"But--" Gandalf says incredulously.

"Don't be such a coward, Gandalf." Aragorn draws his swords, not even looking at the wizard. "You're just an NPC anyway. Why do you hate fun?"

"I can't wait to level up!" Gimli says, kissing his bicep. "You've got a copy of my magic item wishlist, right John?"

Frodo pats Gandalf on the arm. "It's okay," the hobbit says with a sigh. "I always suspected that Sam and I would have to make it to Mordor without them. Race you to the Bridge of Kazhad Dum?"

It's more like we are a bunch of level 1 pc's following around a much higher level npc. The npc tells us to run that we can't handle the foe that just appeared but that he will stay back and at least buy us time if not defeat the creature outright.

In that situation pretty much all my characters would be running away.

 

[Doug McCrae]

One aspect of this that hasn't received enough attention imo is that the GM didn't see this as a no-win situation. They had a clear 'win' in mind.

I had hoped he would stare it down with a bit of god-fuelled determination.

@CamHallulis who is also a player in this game offers a bit more insight into what the GM might have had planned.

The DM could have planned this as a test of faith for the paladin and if he had stood his ground gave him a huge reward or enlightenment have occurred. IMO the deity the paladin aligns with should have a “Come to (insert deity name here) moment” kind of a “Oh ye is little faith” sermon persay.

I'm not sure if this would also have applied if the paladin had attacked the dragon.

 

[Celebrim]

One aspect of this that hasn't received enough attention imo is that the GM didn't see this as a no-win situation. They had a clear 'win' in mind.

Ultimately, despite the force that everyone is arguing with, I don't think that there is actually a very wide range of opinions in the thread.

I actually think the GM saw this as a win-win situation, and planned to have the dragon flee if the Paladin stood his ground, or at least not kill the PC (through the bargain mechanic) if the Paladin did not. The problem that the OP now finds himself in is that he had not fully planned for what would happen if the Paladin acquiesced to the request, and now what's the boards advice/assurance on what the proper consequences to the Paladin should be.

And so there is really only two camps here:

a) Give him a slap on the wrist. The Paladin didn't really do anything wrong. He was in a no win scenario. Anything more than a slap on the wrist would be a direct insult to the player and is poor DMing.

b) The Paladin violated his Oath and acted in a manner very unbecoming a Paladin, and if you just give a slap on the wrist not only are you making the scene that was created involving the brutal death of an NPC while you stood back and let it happen meaningless, and not only are you making more meaningless any play that proceeds from this scene, but you are more or less endorsing the cowardly behavior and you should expect then to get more of the same with the player finding self-interested excuses for not behaving like a Paladin. And ultimately that makes the PC a weaker and less interesting protagonist, means that you have no real impetus toward having some sort of character arc here, since the player can just ignore this scene, and makes the game less satisfactory for all participants. Or as a general rule, emotionally powerful scenes should carry large game consequences.

 

[Oofta]

As others stated I think the biggest issue I have is a DM setting up a scenario along the lines of "when X happens the PC(s) will do Y, and if they don't I will punish them."

I've had players do something obviously stupid and put themselves into a bad situation. I've had combats go sideways where I'm rolling all 20s and their getting nothing but 1s. Bad things happen.

But I don't drop something like this on them and blame them when they don't do what I expect. I don't blame the victim for my bad DMing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ultimately, despite the force that everyone is arguing with, I don't think that there is actually a very wide range of opinions in the thread.

I actually think the GM saw this as a win-win situation, and planned to have the dragon flee if the Paladin stood his ground, or at least not kill the PC (through the bargain mechanic) if the Paladin did not. The problem that the OP now finds himself in is that he had not fully planned for what would happen if the Paladin acquiesced to the request, and now what's the boards advice/assurance on what the proper consequences to the Paladin should be.

And so there is really only two camps here:

a) Give him a slap on the wrist. The Paladin didn't really do anything wrong. He was in a no win scenario. Anything more than a slap on the wrist would be a direct insult to the player and is poor DMing.

b) The Paladin violated his Oath and acted in a manner very unbecoming a Paladin, and if you just give a slap on the wrist not only are you making the scene that was created involving the brutal death of an NPC while you stood back and let it happen meaningless, and not only are you making more meaningless any play that proceeds from this scene, but you are more or less endorsing the cowardly behavior and you should expect then to get more of the same with the player finding self-interested excuses for not behaving like a Paladin. And ultimately that makes the PC a weaker and less interesting protagonist, means that you have no real impetus toward having some sort of character arc here, since the player can just ignore this scene, and makes the game less satisfactory for all participants. Or as a general rule, emotionally powerful scenes should carry large game consequences.

Option 3. Violation of oath and slap on wristbands

 

[Mort]

And so there is really only two camps here:

a) Give him a slap on the wrist. The Paladin didn't really do anything wrong. He was in a no win scenario. Anything more than a slap on the wrist would be a direct insult to the player and is poor DMing.

b) The Paladin violated his Oath and acted in a manner very unbecoming a Paladin, and if you just give a slap on the wrist not only are you making the scene that was created involving the brutal death of an NPC while you stood back and let it happen meaningless, and not only are you making more meaningless any play that proceeds from this scene, but you are more or less endorsing the cowardly behavior and you should expect then to get more of the same with the player finding self-interested excuses for not behaving like a Paladin. And ultimately that makes the PC a weaker and less interesting protagonist, means that you have no real impetus toward having some sort of character arc here, since the player can just ignore this scene, and makes the game less satisfactory for all participants. Or as a general rule, emotionally powerful scenes should carry large game consequences.

You are forgetting one of the most discussed options:

C) The paladin clearly violated his oath but because the scenario was so poorly telegraphed and expectations clear as mud maybe forego the nuclear option (strip all powers no more paladin for you) and instead have a discussion with the player on how the scenario can be improved on both ends.

Perhaps after this discussion, an arc where the player has to atone is decided on, or perhaps the DM realizes that they handled it badly and moves on. I just don't think a one sided DM declaration is warranted considering the badly telegraphed scenario.

[Edit: beaten to the punch, but I'm posting this anyway - having already typed it and all]

 

[jayoungr]

1. What is the moral thing to do in a situation where it's nearly certainly going to be either you and another dies or just the other dies.

In this case the moral thing to do is for you to choose to live.

Pragmatic? Sure. Moral? Depends on what fictional world you live in and what the the terms of living are. IMVHO.

 

[DammitVictor]

I really love how people keep pulling out the Kobayashi Maru to justify why putting players and PCs into impossible situations is good gaming.

1) The Star Trek writers had full awareness and control of the scenario
2) The people "playing" Cadet Kirk were the same people who had full control and awareness of the scenario
3) At no point were either the audience or the writers ever required to come up with an actual solution
4) The Kobayashi Maru was explicitly a simulation; Cadet Kirk's solution would not have worked in "real life"

It's a colorful story, a wonderful moment of characterization for an even more colorful character in his backstory, but it only works in fiction for the same reasons it doesn't work in a multiplayer game, and the whole point of the exercise is to teach young, heroic Starfleet officers the exact opposite of the moral lesson Kirk took from it.

Those kinds of scenarios in gaming only work in systems where players have the kind of narrative control to invent their own "third options"; in a game like D&D, player characters only have the options that the DM either gives to them, or fails to account for, and it is ridiculously unfair and unfun for DMs to expect players to outwit them in an environment in which they have perfect control and players have imperfect awareness.

Also... basing any kind of real-world moral reasoning-- including imposing moral standards on other peoples' fictional characters-- on Mary Sue's First Noodle Incident is both ridiculous and terrifying.