While I am no admirer of Godse the conflict b/w him and Gandhi highlights an important difference b/w "Deontological ethics" and "consequentialist ethics"

Gandhi: Withholding Rs 55cr from Pak an act of bad faith

Godse: 55 cr will be used to fund militants in ongoing Kashmir war

So do you stick to your word and act in good faith?

Or do you cheat when you strongly suspect the other side won't act in good faith in response to your gesture?

Now the Mahabharata offers many such situations for us to ponder upon

Drishtadyumna's dastardly way of killing Drona
Yudhishtira's engagement in subterfuge
Use of Shikhandi in battle

But vAsudEva KrSNa justifies these acts with what I'd call a consequentialist mindset

These acts of chicanery are OK as they help the "right" side win the war.

"Dharma" is on our side

Ramayana is a somewhat different epic

Should Shri Ramachandra have revolted against his father and his favorite queen Keikeyi? Even if that meant "disrespecting his parents" and going back on his word?

Maybe in that context, you could argue Rama being the divine avatAr was aware of the larger mission that awaited him down south - the killing of rAvaNa

And hence chose to ensure his father abides by his word

Alternatively you could argue -

That's not rAma's lens.

His conviction was to "do the right thing" regardless of what lay ahead.

He'd have done what he did even if no rAvaNa samhAra propsect lay ahead

So was rAma taking a deontological view of ethics? Or was he a strict consequentialist?

I leave that up for debate