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

[firstkyne]

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.

The reason the dragon said the paladin could live was because the paladin rolled a pretty strong persuasion roll when explaining to the dragon that he had trespassed on its territory because he was completing a world-shaking mission, the success of which would also benefit the dragon (by ridding it of the great undead dragon that had recently ousted it from it's previous territory.

I thought the player would get that this was a great moment to push the 'I am on a mission from God! Mess with me, mess with my God!' angle. I mean, even the coincidentally climactic background music pointed that way, I thought!

But he just thought 'F*** you, your picking on me', I think. I really don't.

Thanks for your advice. I've been playing for 33 years and made a mistake, I know that.

And to those who have been writing pretty venemous stuff as if I'm one of those dick GMs who just torture players, you know, you can fill the gaps.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Choices. It might be fair to say that it was a bit of a curveball for the player.




We were playing it that his warlock patron WAS his God, which is more or less basically Tyr, if you're familiar with Forgotten Realms.
I think his God would see this as diametrically opposed to his commitment to bring light and protect life.

Then you shouldn't have presented the player with a suicide pact to test this without explaining, when the player chose the class, that you would consider this okay play. Regardless of anything else, you need to examine your part in this and understand that you cannot rely on players to guess what you intend in a scene -- if you're offering an alternate path, make it absolutely clear. Nothing is served by playing coy with information like this.

Once you do that, consider if it's a fair play to punish the player over this. "That's what would happen in the fiction" is a poor rationale for leveling consequences that only fall on half of a two party problem. Remember that you, as DM, control that fiction and need to make a reasonable call so that the players have fun. No-win situations with hidden solutions that result in PC punishment are just poor play. Either skip the no-wins or skip the PC punishment. Have a talk with the player, get on the same page, examine the problems in the scenario fairly (on both sides), and move forward into a better game.

 

[Mort]

Choices. It might be fair to say that it was a bit of a curveball for the player.




We were playing it that his warlock patron WAS his God, which is more or less basically Tyr, if you're familiar with Forgotten Realms.
I think his God would see this as diametrically opposed to his commitment to bring light and protect life.

Question:

What clues/knowledge/information did the player have to indicate that the scenario had a solution other than give up the human or also die?

 

[Ovinomancer]

The reason the dragon said the paladin could live was because the paladin rolled a pretty strong persuasion roll when explaining to the dragon that he had trespassed on its territory because he was completing a world-shaking mission, the success of which would also benefit the dragon (by ridding it of the great undead dragon that had recently ousted it from it's previous territory.

I thought the player would get that this was a great moment to push the 'I am on a mission from God! Mess with me, mess with my God!' angle. I mean, even the coincidentally climactic background music pointed that way, I thought!

But he just thought 'F*** you, your picking on me', I think. I really don't.

Thanks for your advice. I've been playing for 33 years and made a mistake, I know that.

And to those who have been writing pretty venemous stuff as if I'm one of those dick GMs who just torture players, you know, you can fill the gaps.

Okay, if I'm reading this right, the dragon confronted the paladin with the NPC. The paladin attempted to placate the dragon by explaining his mission. He succeeded on this task. You then had the dragon say, "give me the NPC and you can go, then."

If this is correct, I think there's a few things going on. FIrstly, I'm not sure you made it clear that the new position of the dragon was just a counter-offer and the negotiation was still ongoing. It seems to me that, from the player side, this looks like, "well, I can't beat that dragon, and I just rolled a great persuasion check, and this is where it is." To the player, this looks like what his best effort gets, and so was probably disheartened by the result and figured there was no more room to play. In other words, he played his best, got a good result, and it still resulted in a bad result.

I like to say that, as a DM, it is imperative that you both honor success and honor failure. If you call for/allow a roll, you have to honor the results so your players have a solid idea of what's at stake and that their actions matter. Here, you honored the success, but didn't make it clear that more could be useful. The stakes of the actions were not clear -- you had one idea, the player another. This is a common miscommunication that can be solved by taking a step back in the situations and being explicit about what's at stake -- what a success will look like and what a failure will look like. That way, players can make informed choices instead of having to guess and it also avoids situations like this.

Making a mistake is perfectly fine. I do it all the time. The issue I see that's got some negative reactions in this thread is your presupposition that the player's character must be punished for the results of this mistake. I think that, honestly, mistakes were made on both sides, but if you punish only the PC, then it becomes entirely one-sided -- yours. You've compounded a miscommunicated and misunderstood scenario by punishing only one party in it. I strongly recommend you don't do that. If you need to keep fictional continuity, then have the paladin dream that atonement is needed and that more effort to protect the weak will be expected in the future. Then, or perhaps first, have a frank conversation with the player where you hammer out expectations together -- ie, don't dictate the oath requirements, seek consensus. That way you get to make it a fictionally important moment in your game but avoid doubling down on the mistakes.

 

[Oofta]

The reason the dragon said the paladin could live was because the paladin rolled a pretty strong persuasion roll when explaining to the dragon that he had trespassed on its territory because he was completing a world-shaking mission, the success of which would also benefit the dragon (by ridding it of the great undead dragon that had recently ousted it from it's previous territory.

I thought the player would get that this was a great moment to push the 'I am on a mission from God! Mess with me, mess with my God!' angle. I mean, even the coincidentally climactic background music pointed that way, I thought!

But he just thought 'F*** you, your picking on me', I think. I really don't.

Thanks for your advice. I've been playing for 33 years and made a mistake, I know that.

And to those who have been writing pretty venemous stuff as if I'm one of those dick GMs who just torture players, you know, you can fill the gaps.

Go back and read the rules on "Breaking your oath". The guidance is to be pretty lenient, I would say that the worst case is that the paladin needs to seek absolution if you think they made a mistake. But that's all I would do unless the player is going out of their way to break their oath.

 

[MoonSong]

The reason the dragon said the paladin could live was because the paladin rolled a pretty strong persuasion roll when explaining to the dragon that he had trespassed on its territory because he was completing a world-shaking mission, the success of which would also benefit the dragon (by ridding it of the great undead dragon that had recently ousted it from it's previous territory.

I thought the player would get that this was a great moment to push the 'I am on a mission from God! Mess with me, mess with my God!' angle. I mean, even the coincidentally climactic background music pointed that way, I thought!

But he just thought 'F*** you, your picking on me', I think. I really don't.

Thanks for your advice. I've been playing for 33 years and made a mistake, I know that.

And to those who have been writing pretty venemous stuff as if I'm one of those dick GMs who just torture players, you know, you can fill the gaps.

Sorry for the hyperbole. I think that you made a big miscalculation, and that both you and the player dropped the ball. Communication is key. You failed to communicate that this could be solved with words, and the player failed to state a "Are you aware that this is a character ending moment and I feel like you are picking on me?" (Because by not having understood that this was winnable that's what he felt). Instead he reacted humanely to the perception of being picked on and went with "Screw this, I'm effed as it is. I won't engage the situation anymore".

Best chance going forward is to talk this up and then forget it happened. Yes he did something he should fall for, but that is the result of frustration with a misunderstanding. I think you could just retcon it all as the dragon not being a dragon but a test from the paladin's deity, while the paladin saw through it and called the bluff. Everybody happy!

 

[FrogReaver]

The reason the dragon said the paladin could live was because the paladin rolled a pretty strong persuasion roll when explaining to the dragon that he had trespassed on its territory because he was completing a world-shaking mission, the success of which would also benefit the dragon (by ridding it of the great undead dragon that had recently ousted it from it's previous territory.

I thought the player would get that this was a great moment to push the 'I am on a mission from God! Mess with me, mess with my God!' angle. I mean, even the coincidentally climactic background music pointed that way, I thought!

But he just thought 'F*** you, your picking on me', I think. I really don't.

Thanks for your advice. I've been playing for 33 years and made a mistake, I know that.

And to those who have been writing pretty venemous stuff as if I'm one of those dick GMs who just torture players, you know, you can fill the gaps.

Almost sounds like you want to punish the player because you think he thought "you're picking on me" and found an easy way out.

With the additional details I believe the paladins actions in giving the npc to the dragon were totally justified.

 

[FrogReaver]

Question:

What clues/knowledge/information did the player have to indicate that the scenario had a solution other than give up the human or also die?

While interesting I'm not even sure it matters. The character gave his best effort to save himself and the npc and could reasonably believe he did so. Even the dice agreed. He may could have done a little more but he did enough for his actions to be justified IMO.

 

[firstkyne]

Question:

What clues/knowledge/information did the player have to indicate that the scenario had a solution other than give up the human or also die?

Well we'd been playing the campaign for over 2 years, I have never put the paladin in a damned of you do damned if you don't moment EVER before, nor any other of my seven players.
What he HAS seen is that the style is on the cinematic side, I dunno, hard to describe isn't it, the entire rapor you think you have with another player in all its stands...

 

[firstkyne]

Okay, if I'm reading this right, the dragon confronted the paladin with the NPC. The paladin attempted to placate the dragon by explaining his mission. He succeeded on this task. You then had the dragon say, "give me the NPC and you can go, then."

If this is correct, I think there's a few things going on. FIrstly, I'm not sure you made it clear that the new position of the dragon was just a counter-offer and the negotiation was still ongoing. It seems to me that, from the player side, this looks like, "well, I can't beat that dragon, and I just rolled a great persuasion check, and this is where it is." To the player, this looks like what his best effort gets, and so was probably disheartened by the result and figured there was no more room to play. In other words, he played his best, got a good result, and it still resulted in a bad result.

I like to say that, as a DM, it is imperative that you both honor success and honor failure. If you call for/allow a roll, you have to honor the results so your players have a solid idea of what's at stake and that their actions matter. Here, you honored the success, but didn't make it clear that more could be useful. The stakes of the actions were not clear -- you had one idea, the player another. This is a common miscommunication that can be solved by taking a step back in the situations and being explicit about what's at stake -- what a success will look like and what a failure will look like. That way, players can make informed choices instead of having to guess and it also avoids situations like this.

Making a mistake is perfectly fine. I do it all the time. The issue I see that's got some negative reactions in this thread is your presupposition that the player's character must be punished for the results of this mistake. I think that, honestly, mistakes were made on both sides, but if you punish only the PC, then it becomes entirely one-sided -- yours. You've compounded a miscommunicated and misunderstood scenario by punishing only one party in it. I strongly recommend you don't do that. If you need to keep fictional continuity, then have the paladin dream that atonement is needed and that more effort to protect the weak will be expected in the future. Then, or perhaps first, have a frank conversation with the player where you hammer out expectations together -- ie, don't dictate the oath requirements, seek consensus. That way you get to make it a fictionally important moment in your game but avoid doubling down on the mistakes.

Yep, I pretty much agree with everything here. Thanks very much.