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

[Maxperson]

Sir Sparhawk is another paladin from the Elenium series and the Tamuli series, who often bends or sometimes breaks the white knight mold. In fact, it's his humanity and flaws that make him such a great paladin. He's not this impossible human caricature that many people envision D&D paladins to be.

 

[Hussar]

For a paladin... it doesn't matter. A paladin shouldn't believe in no-win situations in the first place.

Yeah, QUIT MAKING ME AGREE WITH @Maxperson. It's giving me a complex.

I'm not sure I agree with that. While Paladins certainly have their oaths, I doubt that their oaths are taken to such extremes that they will needlessly sacrifice themselves for zero gain. Again, that's a little too lawful stupid for me.

It's not like Captain America jumped out off the train to save Bucky was it? What's the difference? He could have jumped and maybe saved Bucky - he had done more spectacular things in the past. But, instead, he watches Bucky disappear into the snow and then gets on with the mission.

Once we've agreed that there is a point where the paladin has "done enough" to "reasonably" determine if this is a no-win situation, all we're doing after that is haggling over the price.

 

[Hussar]

It isn't in a rulebook, but tell me of a knight in white armor that ever did this?

But, that's the point of this thread. This is NOT a knight in white armor. That's the Oath of Devotion paladins. This is a different sort of holy knight. More Green Knight than Knight in White Armor to be honest. Heck, if this was a green dragon, he might even argue that he's helping nature. (Ok, that was a joke, not serious.)

Ok, so, the knight says, "Take me" and the dragon then takes the man instead and eats him. Is there any difference? Most would say yes, that the paladin did enough to justify that this was a no-win situation.

Again, once you've decided that there is some level at which his actions are justified, all we're doing now is haggling over price.

 

[5ekyu]

We are dealing with a situation where the act the Paladin did was outright evil in every scenario except a no-win scenario. A good person doesn't do otherwise outright evil acts without making sure they are justified by virtue of only having worse options.

Sorry but i reject this idea... That its evil unless its no win.

Remember there is another factor... The paladin is already engaged in a quest to save te world.

So, risking that by courting death here is very low on the moral choices list, isnt it?

Far as i can tell,

 

[Fanaelialae]

You are conflating a bunch of different things into this one scenario so let's go through them.

1. What is Robbery?

"Robbery in Virginia (Va. Code §18.2-58) is the taking of property from another person by violence or intimidation with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. Robbery is a very serious charge in Virginia and is punished with 5 years up to life in prison."

What happened definitely meets the legal definition of robbery. So now, the criminal would still get charges pressed against him and it wouldn't matter whether I agreed to call it robbery or not, because the facts of the situation make it apparent that's what it was even if I don't call it that.

2. Was an agreement made during the robbery? Yes. You agreed to give the robber your wallet in exchange for not killing you.



Of course. The dictionary does tell us what words mean which is what the discussion of agreement and deal is ultimately about.

(Though it almost sounds like you were trying to set up a strawman just to knock it down. No one here believes or has advocated for a dictionary being a guide to morality)



Totally agree. It's just an agreement made under duress is still an agreement. It's just an agreement that we morally and legally may void after the threat is over because we as a society have agreed that we find agreements reached through intimidation to be immoral.

I strongly disagree. You were the one who repeatedly insisted on being provided a definition to refute your claim (hence my pointing out that a dictionary is not a guide to moral philosophy). Note that the definition of robbery that you provided makes no claim of an agreement or deal taking place, but that's neither here nor there.

It seems to me that based on your argument, that if a person is placed under the threat of mortal violence, and then they are heinously violated by some means (whether that be the forcible theft of their possessions or acts even more terrible and vulgar), that you consider them to having agreed to be violated as such. To me this a prime example of victim blaming and shaming. In fact, I believe that such thought processes are one of the root causes of victim blaming and shaming. "It's their fault because they didn't fight back." No. It isn't the victim's fault or the victim's shame. The fault and shame always fall squarely on the perpetrator, never the victim. The victim doesn't ask to be violated, nor do they grant their consent to such. Such deplorable acts of force are intended to render the victim's choice moot.

Additionally, I would argue that the reason society considers an agreement made under duress to be invalid is because we recognize that an agreement requires consent, irrespective of whether that is part of the dictionary definition. Consent cannot be forced under duress. Similarly, minors are incapable of entering into a binding agreement without the consent of a legal guardian, because minors are recognized as not being capable of giving consent under many circumstances, rather than simply while under duress.

What you are arguing is semantics. Does a person who is forced to do something under duress fit the letter definition of agreeing to it? Arguably so. Does it fit the spirit of an agreement? The intent of what it means to agree to something? Absolutely not!

 

[Nagol]

Ummmm, The dragon wasn't threatening to reveal compromising or damaging information about the Paladin?????

Yeah, not blackmail.

But you can change the wording without changing the functional or intentional logic to make the case more clear:

"I am taking your companion. I will kill you if you interfere."

There's no offer. There's a threat.

 

[CamHallulis]

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.

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

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

I actually am not a player in this particular campaign just had a discussion ab it with my own GM irl

 

[Keravath]

Wow ... mega thread. Morality conundrums always generate a lot of traffic. [Inappropriate comment removed].

1) None of us were at the table. We have no idea what the DM said or how it was said.
2) We don't know the paladin's alignment, all we know is oath of the ancients with one level of warlock, we don't know the pact or any additional constraints.

---

3) All we know is:

• that the paladin was carrying an NPC to safety.
• He was stopped by an Adult dragon
• the dragon wanted the NPC and offered to let the paladin live if he handed the NPC over.
• The paladin decided to give up the NPC.
• The OP mentioned something about hoping the character would stand up to the dragon.
• the OP wants to know if the paladin acted against his beliefs and should be punished for it

---

4) The possible reactions on the part of the character are:
a) fight (and die, losing both the NPC and the character) [this is the usual result of fighting an Adult dragon on your own]
b) give up the NPC and trust the word of the dragon [this may or may not be reasonable depending on whether you believe dragons will keep their word]
c) try to talk your way out of it [this is the only approach that has a possibility of saving both the NPC and the character]

5) The character decided to give up the NPC.

• the validity of this decision depends on information we don't know
• did the DM portray the dragon as DEMANDING the NPC be handed over? Did the DM make it look like the dragon would not negotiate under any circumstances? DId the DM make it clear that even trying to negotiate would be interpreted as a refusal to turn over the NPC and result in the death of both? [We have no idea since we weren't there]
• did the DM portray the dragon as ASKING for the NPC? Did the DM give any reason why the dragon might have considered sparing the paladin?

IF the character perceived the situation as deadly and that any other action (including talking) other than handing over the NPC was going to trigger an attack by the dragon then handing over the NPC was reasonable since it preserves the life of the paladin in a situation where there was NO other choice.

On the other hand, if the character/player realized that there might be room to talk and negotiate and perhaps preserve the life of the NPC as well as his own then the paladin should probably have tried talking first before giving up the NPC.

I think these are the two most commonly expressed points of view in this thread. However, NONE of us were there and the OP has not provided sufficient detail (intentionally?) for it to be reasonably resolved.

It all comes down to how the player/character interpreted the scene as set by the DM. Giving up the NPC doesn't break the oaths of an ancients paladin since preserving the light is one of the oaths and sometimes a character is forced to choose which tenets to follow if they can't follow them all simultaneously. The 5e paladin is very different from earlier editions and self-preservation is a valid choice in most of the oaths.

--

In any case, even choosing to just hand over the NPC without negotiation, given the overwhelming threat involved, doesn't necessarily invalidate the oath of the paladin. In addition, the OP mentioned some world saving story line in which the paladin plays a role. Dying to a dragon could have very negative consequences for many creatures if it results in the failure of the paladin to prevent whatever is going on. This brings the entire greater good argument into the decision. Does the paladin risk his life further by trying to stand up to an unbeatable foe and potentially doom many others if he dies and can not complete the quest? Or does he give up the NPC avoiding the risk in order to save more later?

Again, we don't have enough information from the OP to make an informed decision, but given the little we do have, I would not say that the paladin broke his oath taking the actions outlined by the OP.

P.S. Whether the DM had a "clear win" in mind or not is irrelevant since the PC only has the information provided by the DM to act on. If the DM presented the dragon as being unwilling to negotiate (and we have no idea how it was presented) then the PC has no choice but to base their actions on their perceptions and what the DM says rather than some mythical "clear win" solution that the DM may or may not have in mind.

 

[Wiseblood]

Oh, it just occurred to me the injured man.....was a chef! The dragon was going to force him to cook it’s meals.

Never go in against a paladin when Death! Is on the line.

Would you let a druid wear metal armor just once to save their lives without penalty?

Would the paladin have given the dragon all of their wealth? ( I have given all of my wealth away to escape a situation. Magic weapons, boots, armor and even my silver rings and fine brandy. Walked out barefoot just wearing my snakeskin pants. I lived. Others were killed by their own avarice. BTW I was chaotic neutral.)

 

[BookBarbarian]

@firstkyne I appreciate you giving us more information.

I do think the action is contrary to some of the Tenets of the Ancients' Oath. Here's how I would handle it.

In game: The next time the Paladin uses any paladin ability like smite or lay on hands, or the next time he long rests, whichever comes first, he receives something like the following vision "the Paladin seems himself in a beautiful ancient forest filled with life. Slowly the life starts to decay. The Paladin notices the decay seems to be worst closest to where he is standing. Indeed it emanates from his feet. Just before the vision ends the Paladin's ears are filled with the laughter of a dragon."

The Paladin's abilities all still function as normal except for this recurring vision. Maybe the Paladin also gains the following flaw "The monstrous enemy we faced in battle still leaves me quivering with fear." but that might be a bit much.

Out of Game: Talk with the player about the direction he wants the character's story to go. Explain how you were surprised at what the Paladin chose to do. Try and gain an understanding of your player's reasoning. Admit that perhaps this wasn't the best encounter and you want to try to make your future encounters more enjoyable for everyone. The important thing here is to come to a consensus. If the player wants redemption, figure out a way for the Paladin to find some. If the Player feels redemption is unnecessary, talk about that too. You might end up with the character becoming an Oathbreaker, or choosing a new oath or specializing as a fighter, or indeed no mechanical change at all. It's ultimately up to you, just make sure what you choose is satisfying for you both.

Feel free to pick and choose any part of that advice you think is useful but the out of game conversation is the far more important part of my advice IMHO.

Also, how the dragon behaves is entirely up to you. As far as I know there is no need for a Dragon to eat as they are explicitly magical creatures. Even if they do need to in your setting I assume they don't need to eat people? So perhaps this dragon wasn't really hungry just having a bit of fun like cats do with mice. Perhaps the dragon is still having fun with his prey? Maybe the Paladin or party wants to find out?

Lastly. I don't think it realistic that the Paladin could have intimidated the dragon away, however this particular dragon could have been the kind to want to keep his eye on certain mortals for his own benefit and entertainment. Perhaps this dragon could have been amused by the Paladins convictions (had he chosen to stick with them). Water under the bridge at this point but something I wanted to point out, because I think it's typically best for encounters to be more open ended than closed ended. As the DM I can always close it later if I want, but as you are now seeing if you start with limited options it's harder to put more options back on the table.