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

[5ekyu]

In the general case it appears we are all in closer agreement than it would seem. On both the moral issue and the playstyle issue.

The points of disagreement are more about which cases this specific dragon encounter example falls under. It seems to me that there are a lot of details that could easily move it from one realm to the other.

For example, if the scenario isn't viewed as a no win scenario then just immediately acquiescing to the dragons request is very problematic. However if it is a no-win scenario where the only choices are either acquiesce to the request or you both die then the paladin chose the moral action.

With that said, there's one principle that hasn't really been discussed much in relation to the moral / not moral question. Moral decisions are always based on impartial knowledge. So the most important part of determining the morality of the paladins action isn't to look at it from the knowledge we have of the whole situation. Instead it's to look at the knowledge he had of the situation and what actions he could have taken to get more knowledge of the situation.

So in our example, the paladin is confronted with a dragon much to strong for him to fight and survive. The dragon gives him a verbal choice, "i'll kill you both unless you give me the NPC." At this point in the scene how can the paladin know that it's a no-win scenario? Is there any reasonable actions a person could do in this scenario to attempt to validate that it's a no-win scenario. Is it okay to give the NPC to the Dragon without attempting to validate it's a no win scenario first?

That to me is ultimate root cause of the paladins moral failure in this example, no attempt to validate that his situation really was a no win scenario before he gave the NPC to the dragon. It's also important to note that this moral failure exists whether it actually was a no win scenario or not and regardless of whether the paladin or his player believed it was a no-win scenario.

Obviously the first and most obvious way to verify he cannot win is to try and win and fail.

Most likely result, two dead.

keeps coming back to an requirement to keep trying in spite of previous efforts to win that failed?
not sure where that train ends.

if he tries to negotiate and that fails, then what? Find another "try a new way to win" to validate he cannot win? keep risking failure again and again and losing any chance of returning to right the wrong... asd infinutum?

or is there a number, some holy figure, minimum number of "risk it agains" after trying and failing before the oath is fulfilled?

Lets look at a similar example - same exact situiation with ONE change - he was carrying two injured victims to safety - a man and a child.

Dragon gives him the same offer, turn over the man and the rest go free.

Now, is it still beholden on the paladin to fulfill his oath to risk the child and himself to keep trying? Since we have established that this world ending quest wasn't enough to warrant the choice to give in to the dragon, clearly this extra child wont sway the oath-breaking repercussions.

Right?

After all, its got to be about the paladin and his oath... that is what heroic means, right?

 

[Fanaelialae]

As I see it, this is equivalent to a police officer carrying a wounded citizen, and suddenly a tank rolls up and demands that the officer leave the man or die. The officer has sworn an oath to serve and protect, but he also knows that a nuclear bomb is going to go off soon and he's one of the few people who has a chance to stop it. Has the officer disgraced himself and broken his oath if he chooses to leave the man?

I would say no.

Certainly, trying to negotiate with the tank commander for the man's life would be a noble and heroic act. But maybe he doesn't think of it in the heat of the moment. Maybe the commander's voice over the loadspeaker had such a tone of finality to it that the officer legitimately believes this is not a man who will brook even one iota of dissent. Does not thinking to negotiate, or believing that negotiation will fail outright mean that he has violated his oath?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if the player had thought the dragon would have taken some rations instead of the man, he would have offered the rations.

Placed in an impossible situation, with no hope of fighting back, I don't think that the paladin broke his oath. Is it a good act? No. But I don't think that it counts as an evil act either, particularly given that he did it so that he can continue to save others (the world ending scenario).

As others have said, the player and DM should discuss it out of game. If the DM engineered this scenario intentionally, then they ought to learn from this and not do so in the future. It's one thing to place a character in a situation where you have no idea as to a solution, and quite another where the only "right" answer involves reading the DM's mind. At worst, the paladin should get a warning of some kind, IMO.

 

[Nagol]

"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: If I couldn't prevent a dragon from killing an innocent, how exactly was I to save the world from an even bigger menace?.

Umm, by not standing directly in front of the threshing machine? Like, I can save 100 people from a machine gun nest by sidling around and taking it out from the side but still fail to save a single one from being killed by standing in front of machine gun fire.

And you tell me about ego? Ego would be to value my own life over the others! And what do you know about it? you didn't do anything! If you reduce life to a cold calculation I don't see how you can call yourself a good deity. I regret nothing, except trusting an uncaring gawd like you. Now if excuse me, there's a spot in the wall with my name on it..


IMO, If you are not trying to be heroic, then you are a paladin in name only. Obviously, you cannot save everyone, but you still have to try, especially if they are under your direct protection. It is ok to fail because you got defeated, because you cant be everywhere or because you got outmaneuvered. It is not ok to outright sell the innocent you are protecting to save your own fleece.

And this is why many groups tend to not want paladins or the equivalent. Not because the players or PCs feel diminished or unworthy by their shining example, but because strategically, operationally, and tactically they cause problems and get people -- themselves and more importantly those around them -- killed without value.

 

[5ekyu]

I remember a comment about how courage and resolve should not be considered virtues or "hood" out of context of their application.

It's like praising "tpyup, he drove us headlong into that fatal crash, but he never blinked, not once."

 

[GameOgre]

One thing that escaped my notice earlier is the wording of the thread Title.

Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next?

I don't think anyone,even those like myself who see the possibility but for sure not the inevitability of the Paladin being in the wrong, would see this is MURDER.

MURDER it certainly was not. The fact that the DM worded it is such a way means something to me. Either he is interested in more Paladin angst threads or he has serious issue with how he perceives Paladins.

I'm leaning more towards the second because I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Nagol]

One thing that escaped my notice earlier is the wording of the thread Title.

Paladin just committed murder - what should happen next?

I don't think anyone,even those like myself who see the possibility but for sure not the inevitability of the Paladin being in the wrong, would see this is MURDER.

MURDER it certainly was not. The fact that the DM worded it is such a way means something to me. Either he is interested in more Paladin angst threads or he has serious issue with how he perceives Paladins.

I'm leaning more towards the second because I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Several people In the thread agree that the paladin should be considered a murderer or at a minimum an unindicted co-conspirator. I see the paladin as effectively a mugging victim.

 

[5ekyu]

Several people In the thread agree that the paladin should be considered a murderer or at a minimum an unindicted co-conspirator. I see the paladin as effectively a mugging victim.

Yup

 

[FrogReaver]

Several people In the thread agree that the paladin should be considered a murderer or at a minimum an unindicted co-conspirator. I see the paladin as effectively a mugging victim.

I’m not sure that’s really their position.

 

[Nagol]

I’m not sure that’s really their position.

I am not victim blaming. I am blaming an un-indicted co-conspirator.

<Snip lots>

But for this specific example, the title of this thread is "Paladin Just Committed Murder, What Should Happen Next?" So let's accept the fact that the DM has already decided that the paladin's actions amount to murder in this context...it's right there, in the title of the post. The paladin/warlock is guilty of murder in this game world, so let's start there.

Where I live, murder is a felony offense that is punishable by life in prison. In other states, it can get you the death penalty. So before we ever start worrying about the paladin losing his special powers, he might need to worry about facing charges for negligent homicide (assuming negligent homicide is a crime in this world. It could be like Skyrim, where you can slaughter dozens of people in a cave and nobody bats an eye.)

<snip lots more>

 

[Oofta]

Umm, by not standing directly in front of the threshing machine? Like, I can save 100 people from a machine gun nest by sidling around and taking it out from the side but still fail to save a single one from being killed by standing in front of machine gun fire.



And this is why many groups tend to not want paladins or the equivalent. Not because the players or PCs feel diminished or unworthy by their shining example, but because strategically, operationally, and tactically they cause problems and get people -- themselves and more importantly those around them -- killed without value.

Which is why I don't play or like DMs that enforce lawful stupid paladins.

They only cause issues if you put them in an artificial straight jacket or constantly throw no-win no good option scenarios at them as "moral dilemmas".