Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7818280" data-attributes="member: 42582">Being killed by a dragon isn't suicide in the relevant sense.The AD&D PHB says (p 22) refers to "knowingly" performing a chaotic act and "knowingly and willingly" performing an evil act. The 3.5 SRD refers to "willingly" performing an evil act. Handing over the NPC is knowing and willing. Coerced acts are nevertheless willed acts (contrast automatism, or in the context of D&D magical compulsion).The 5e SRD describes the Sacred Oath and Oath of Devotion as "commit[tin] the paladin to the cause of righteousness, an active path of fighting wickedness" which includes "protect[ing] those entrusted to your care". Giving up the NPC to the dragon clearly does not count as protecting someone entrusted to the paladin's care. (I am aware that the paladin in the OP is Oath of Ancients, not Oath of Devotion. But Oath of Devotion is clearly the most archetypal paladin.)And for the sake of clarity: I am talking about what counts as doing the right thing and what counts as violating the paladin's oaths and obligations. I am not talking about the gameplay question of whether or not the paladin should lose his/her abilities (in the fiction) which is to say that the player should lose core elements of his/her PC (at the table). My understanding of 5e is that the notion of the "fallen paladin" following from a GM judgement call is not an inherent feature of the game. And personally it's something that I'm not a big fan of, as per the thread from 2011 that I linked to not that far upthread.</blockquote>

Verification