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

[Maxperson]

Third, I disagree with the (prevailing) sentiment that you should get the player's permission to impose divine punishment on a paladin who violates his oath. That's the whole point of the oath- he has to live up to it or fall.

Not really. He has to live up to it or seek absolution. It's only for willful violations with no signs of repentance that the paladin will fall.

This paladin had no choice, so the violation wasn't even willful. It's not like he walked up to the man and hacked him down of his own volition.

I do agree with you that you don't need the player's permission, though. Or put another way, you already have the players permission by virtue of him picking a which comes with requirements and penalties.

 

[Oofta]

An analogous scenario, at least as far as I see it.

Let's say that the PC has a ring that they inherited. Something they thought was just a normal ring, maybe a signet ring, but just one of those trinket things you roll for. The DM decided that everyone should start having some minor magical item and decided that the ring is a Ring of Feather Fall. The PC does not know this, never having fallen more than 10 feet.

An NPC is falling off a cliff, the PC paladin could jump after him. The DM knows they will both be okay, he's decided that anything the paladin can carry will also be covered by the feather fall magic.

Instead, the PC lets the NPC plummet to his doom and DM accuses the paladin of murder. After all, the PC could have saved the NPC.

Is this an unlikely event? Sure. So is a relatively low level PC "staring down" an adult dragon.

I don't see any moral difference in the two scenarios. In neither one did the player know that there was a chance to save the NPC.

If this scenario come up and it's this critical to the PC, it's time for a sidebar. I try to avoid these in game, but once in a blue moon I just have to stop the action and make sure the player knows the consequences of their action. Because maybe I haven't communicated the scene or the ramifications clearly enough. Maybe the player just doesn't grasp the seriousness of the situation. In this scenario I would have at the very least given the player an insight or nature check to know that it might be possible to talk their way out of the situation.

Unless something isn't clear the OP is doing a "gotcha".

 

[Celebrim]

I don't see any moral difference in the two scenarios.

Because you are focusing on the wrong element of the scenario. The moral failing of the Paladin is that they entered in to the agreement. They put someone else's life ahead of their own, and allowed someone else to die in their stead with no agreement from that person. As someone else put it, "A wounded man, a dragon, and a paladin took a vote on which would be eaten."

The paladin didn't resist evil. The paladin didn't even try to negotiate the terms - for example offering his own life in the man's stead. Everything about the paladin's philosophy screams utilitarian self-centeredness.

It's not that the paladin is required to throw his life away. He doesn't have to jump into a river to try to save a drowning man while he's wearing platemail, or jump off a cliff in the hope a miracle will happen. But he does have to resist evil and not enter into a bargain with it.

I've already in this thread given what I thought the equivalent scenarios are.

Steve Rogers would not have stood by and done nothing. Arnaud Beltram would not have stood by and done nothing.

 

[Nagol]

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".

DMs enforcing lawful stupidity/comic book philosophy encourages it, but it's when they turn up on the player-side where these sentiments burn group trust.

 

[Maxperson]

Anything can be justified with the greater good argument.

Not really. What matters is whether or not a violation is willful. If the paladin comes up with a mental justification for why he is going to willfully do something, he's still violating his oath and needs to repent or lose his powers. With the dragon, the paladin was forced by virtue of death if he doesn't, to hand over the NPC. That force makes the violation an unwillful one, since the will of the paladin would have been not to hand over the PC.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes, a PC can choose death. However, not choosing death isn't the same as a willful violation of the oath.

 

[Oofta]

Because you are focusing on the wrong element of the scenario. The moral failing of the Paladin is that they entered in to the agreement. They put someone else's life ahead of their own, and allowed someone else to die in their stead with no agreement from that person. As someone else put it, "A wounded man, a dragon, and a paladin took a vote on which would be eaten."

The paladin didn't resist evil. The paladin didn't even try to negotiate the terms - for example offering his own life in the man's stead. Everything about the paladin's philosophy screams utilitarian self-centeredness.

It's not that the paladin is required to throw his life away. He doesn't have to jump into a river to try to save a drowning man while he's wearing platemail, or jump off a cliff in the hope a miracle will happen. But he does have to resist evil and not enter into a bargain with it.

I've already in this thread given what I thought the equivalent scenarios are.

Steve Rogers would not have stood by and done nothing. Arnaud Beltram would not have stood by and done nothing.

Then there should have been a sidebar. A brief chat about the scenario because it's clear that it didn't ever occur to the player that they could talk their way out of it any more than they would have known that they had a ring of feather fall and could save someone falling to their death.

Suicide is not heroic.

 

[happyhermit]

A man and his injured wife are walking down an alley when confronted by a group of armed guys. They demand he give her over, and say he can go if he does. Knowing she will die, his response is;

"Ok.", and he pushes her forward. Without even a "Sorry honey, but I have to save the world, you know how it is." No attempt at bargaining, intimidation, persuasion, appeal to a higher power, stalling until help arrives. Even for an average Joe this seems... . An average Joe wouldn't be expected to say "Take me instead" for instance, but to not try anything would be a tough one to explain to friends and family unless he claimed to be overwhelmed by fear.

Now, for someone who has sworn an oath that deals with courage, protection, standing up to evil, etc. in a world where gods exist, and that oath has literally granted them tangible magical abilities damn... that's hard to justify.

god: "Woah, you had to give her over to be killed and eaten? The monsters wouldn't even talk about it? That's rough but I'm sure you had absolutely no choice."
PC: "Well, no they did talk. They offered me a deal. I took it."
god: "Wait, what?"

 

[Maxperson]

Because you are focusing on the wrong element of the scenario. The moral failing of the Paladin is that they entered in to the agreement.

No. There was no agreement. The paladin was FORCED to hand over the NPC by a death threat from a being that could back it up. It was not a willful violation of the paladin's oath.

 

[Maxperson]

I can make the argument that the paladin choosing to die is in willful violation of his oath.

"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."

If the paladin chooses suicide, he is willfully allowing his own light to die and failing to preserve it in the world. By handing over the PC to the dragon FORCING him to do so, he is upholding the above tenet of his oath. If he instead refuses and dies, he is willfully choosing to break his oath and dies unrepentant, and therefore dies a non-paladin oathbreaker(I think I may have channeled @lowkey13 )