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

[5ekyu]

When I throw a dragon at my players, the dragon doesn't usually offer a way out. It is a battle to the death and if the players lose, they die. So in that respect, the dragon offering a way for the paladin to escape with his life is merciful (although a cruel act on the part of the dragon).



My party members were not able to escape either, so it is pretty similar. If my character would have been killed, then my party members would have died all the same. But the paladin was given an option to either save himself or die heroically... he decided to live. My character decided to die bravely without being given an ultimatum.

"When I throw a dragon at my players, the dragon doesn't usually offer a way out. It is a battle to the death and if the players lose, they die."

Two things tho about this case and dragons...

This was a dragon vs one, not a dragon vs party challenge as far as we can tell.

Second, while your dragons may be that simplistic, 5e gives them a bit more. Two of the bad ones, maybe green and black, get off on corruption - one of high class individuals, the other of institutions. They are not just engines of destruction but also of corruption and decay.

Now since (may have missed a post) this dragon color is not known, its entirely possible this was a green or black wanting to cause that paladin longer term internal conflict.

Or being intelligent and long term cunning, it could have bigger plans.

Point being the offer simply indicates there is more going 9n with this dragon than the casual rampage and kill, hopefully, so ascribing mercy to its motivations and actions is questionable.

It vould just be a black green type acting as the MM portrays

If I have the colors switched up, that's fine point still stands.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not talking about stripping levels here. As I stated earlier, I am against punishing the player for choosing one option or the other. What the paladin did was not very noble, but in my opinion, not punishable to the point of considering his oath as a paladin broken.

The dragon's CR is really not relevant to this particular situation.
What this boils down to, is a couple of questions:

-Should a DM throw his player into an unwinnable battle against such a tough opponent?
-Should the DM offer such a cruel ultimatum as a way to survive?
-Should the DM punish the player for choosing to live to fight another day? (but abandon the npc in the process)

In regards to the first question, I don't think every fight needs to be fair. Provided the risk is properly foreshadowed. As I have often mentioned in other threads, foreshadowing is what it is all about. I run a sandbox campaign in which the players can wander into a high level area. If the players decide to fight a dragon, they should expect that their death is a possibility. I would make sure the players are well aware of the danger they are putting themselves into.

In regards to the second question, I think a DM should play the creature in a way that is in line with its character. Dragons are characters too, and a cruel evil dragon would totally present such an ultimatum to the players. I think that is good roleplaying.

And finally, should the DM punish the player? I don't think so, but I do believe the choice should have consequences. Paladins are often expected to be noble and courageous. Sacrificing the npc to the evil dragon is wrong in my book. I understand why the player made his choice, but I think other characters would not agree with his action.



Dragons by their very definition are tough, deadly opponents. I don't believe a DM should shield his players when he introduces such a powerful opponent into his campaign. Whether the dragon is a right opponent for players of that level is a different matter.

"Dragons by their very definition are tough, deadly opponents. I don't believe a DM should shield his players when he introduces such a powerful opponent into his campaign. Whether the dragon is a right opponent for players of that level is a different matter."

To me the point is that in 5e MM some dragons have a lot more going on than the engine of destruction thing- some specifically aim for corruption and decay. So, while your dragons may go the one way, there are plenty of other ways.



"Should a DM throw his player into an unwinnable battle against such a tough opponent?
-Should the DM offer such a cruel ultimatum as a way to survive?
-Should the DM punish the player for choosing to live to fight another day? (but abandon the npc in the process)"

First one, depends on the definition of "throw". If it's out of the blue cornered without more going on to make it anything more than a death scene? Nope. But there are a lot of cases where too powerful to fight and win fit fine in rpg games.

Second, I see nothing wrong with that ultimatum. It says "more story to come" and as GM I would expect it's likely to motivate the pc to come back. Especially once he sees the NPC being carried off, not eaten immediately on the spot.

Third, GM should never punish the player in any rpg I am in. Not my mama. What consequences the NPCs in the world and the PCs in the world have for the character after this is a whole other question. That includes this PC as one of the ones giving consequences BTW.

So, the answer to that will likely be mixed and varied. Depending on oath and divine, I cannot see any consequence there in my games. Especially if they atone. Its likely if they spread the truth some of the now missing NPC p friends or family have negative reactions but not all. Most likely see it in a variety of ways.

To me, it comes down bigly to how does the paladin feel about it going forward and what do they do, especially in the midst of the quest to save the world. If it were me, as that quest went on, I would use every opportunity to solicit favors and boons to call in to go after the dragon later and rezz the guy.

 

[MoonSong]

"Give me that man, and you can live. I hunger"

The paladin was cornered by a creature far more powerful than them.
No mention or hint of any sign of vulnerability is given.
The player said he did not want the character to die and wanted to continue the world saving quest.
The post said the GM expected a stare down but no indication that it would succeed or that anything made it likely to succeed in the eyes of the player - no established aversion or fear of staring contests by dragons.

So, yeah, this scene seems to be a agree or die proposition - especially to the player in the moment.

BTW, that to me is key.

The player in the moment, right as the scene resolved, after the actual play, descriptions etc were presents saw it as an "or die" offer as it was stated.

So, while we can imagine all sorts of other things, that is how it came across in the moment to the player.

The player failing to see whatever other possibility we might imagine and taking what seemed the best option is not the character failing his oath.

But die fighting is the way here. There's this idea of living to fight other day, or because "The fate of the world is more important". But I counter with "How can I save the world if I can't save this one life?" If I am playing a paladin, I have to be heroic to the bitter end, no question.

Now, If I was put in this kind of no win scenario by the DM, I wouldn't waste time telling the DM I am owed something nice for the loss of the character, as the loss was no fault of my own. Specially as we both understand that giving up the innocent was never on the table.

So, basically, all paladins MUST be suicidal. They can never, ever surrender, nor can they retreat. Ever. Because to do so would be to violate how you interpret this oath.

Being a Paladin requires you being willing to throw your life for the cause. There's no surrender, nor retreat while innocent lives are on the line.

 

[Hussar]

Exactly this. Paladins are not ordinary people with ordinary beliefs, and they aren't just a different flavor of spellsword. They come with strings attached. I think it makes them more interesting and more challenging to play, but it also gives them a pretty clear expiration date...and I don't think that's a bad thing. On the other hand, some players do think this is a bad thing, that it's manipulative and abusive, and they will ask (or demand) their DMs to hand-wave some/all of that stuff. Either option is fine, either way is equally correct. The rules deliberately and explicitly leave all of that up to the DM, so there is no wrong way to do it.

If you don't like making tough decisions, taking huge risks, and sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others, you probably wouldn't like playing a paladin in my gaming group. And if paladins weren't held to a higher standard, don't have to uphold their oaths, and don't have to weigh their actions carefully, I wouldn't be playing one. (shrug) Others in this thread would flip all that around, and that's totally cool. To each their own, man.

Meh, to me, choosing to live IS the tough decision.

Player chooses to fight and character dies. Character comes up before the pearly gates and his diety of choice:

Gawd: So, you died.
Paladin: Yes, it was a glorious death. I died as a shining beacon of hope.
Gawd: So, the man escaped?
Paladin: No. He died immediately.
Gawd: So, you took the gawd given gifts you had, abandoned your quest to save to world, and threw them away on a pointless gesture that achieved nothing other than to assuage your own ego? We certainly never told you death before dishonor.
Paladin: But, but, it was the moral thing to do!
Gawd: Pointlessly killing yourself in a meaningless gesture was the moral thing to do? When you knew that your gesture could achieve nothing? THAT was the moral thing to do?
Paladin: But, but, I have it on good authority that that was the moral thing to do and that the true evil in the world is when we don't oppose evil.
Gawd: Well, sorta. Yes, oppose evil is good. Pointlessly killing yourself to achieve nothing is just pointless and stupid.

I don't support the notion that paladins have to make pointless and stupid gestures just to satisfy some DM's sense of morality. Makes me REALLY glad for the group I have.

 

[GameOgre]

Meh, to me, choosing to live IS the tough decision.

Player chooses to fight and character dies. Character comes up before the pearly gates and his diety of choice:

Gawd: So, you died.
Paladin: Yes, it was a glorious death. I died as a shining beacon of hope.
Gawd: So, the man escaped?
Paladin: No. He died immediately.
Gawd: So, you took the gawd given gifts you had, abandoned your quest to save to world, and threw them away on a pointless gesture that achieved nothing other than to assuage your own ego? We certainly never told you death before dishonor.
Paladin: But, but, it was the moral thing to do!
Gawd: Pointlessly killing yourself in a meaningless gesture was the moral thing to do? When you knew that your gesture could achieve nothing? THAT was the moral thing to do?
Paladin: But, but, I have it on good authority that that was the moral thing to do and that the true evil in the world is when we don't oppose evil.
Gawd: Well, sorta. Yes, oppose evil is good. Pointlessly killing yourself to achieve nothing is just pointless and stupid.

I don't support the notion that paladins have to make pointless and stupid gestures just to satisfy some DM's sense of morality. Makes me REALLY glad for the group I have.

I mean that is one way out of many to look at it. You are choosing to see what you want to see,because it's easy. There are just as many ways he could have saved the man as there are ways they both would have died.

I agree that most of those ways are not readily apparent but to say it is certain is stretching things a bit.

Be careful though because a lot of real word Evil acts were actually done with that kind of mindset. We do smaller evil acts for the greater good is a road many many infamous people have gone down, to truly horrible ends.

For instance I take it in your game the Paladin wouldn't have faced any repercussions?
What if the person with him had been a women? A Child?
What if it demanded HE kill the man instead?
Isn't it semantics who does the actual killing? Same life ended at the same time. Why does weapon or who did it make a difference?

What if it was a dozen children? The Paladin could perhaps save millions by saving the world ...he is going to let them all die to save 12 children?


it's food for thought anyway.

My issue with Paladins in 5E is the lack of a strict moral code. I agree it's confusing.

This LG Paladin has this strict code..this Chaotic God one has this ethos. This N.G. one follows these guidelines and this one does not.

I do like Paladins but it's just too much work for one class. Clerics and Warlocks are bad enough but the friggin Paladin is a headache!

 

[Scott Christian]

If he's LG, part of his power comes from his deity. If the dragon sews the seeds of cowardice, and it spreads where everyone knows what he did, including his god - the god withholds his spells until he redeems himself. There is not a deity around that's going to spare their power just to have it used by someone who does not promote their ideals. That is the point of a paladin.

From a story standpoint it could be fun too. Don't let the player know it's happening. He tries to use lay on hands, and it fizzles. He feels the warmth of his god leaving him. He has dreams about being forsaken. Maybe even tempted by an alternate god, or the dragon himself promising something better?

 

[Scott Christian]

PS - Could also be a really fun world building activity for the other players. Watching him go from temple to temple, solving the temple's problems, finding certain herbs to burn, talking to ghostly paladins that try to uplift the player out of the place he's in.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

a

 

[PsyzhranV2]

a

 

[PsyzhranV2]

a