Sehnder's page

Ravingdork Fallacy:

The belief that having something named after you is of more important than coming up with something WORTH naming after you.

It isn't one of the choices you listed, but in my mind there is no better fit for Kaladin than a Paladin. And not just for the alliteration!

My solution isn't terribly savvy, but it works. I told the players the following:

"Anything in the core rulebook is fine. Everything else I will have to look at to approve. I am not looking to be a jerk and most everything should be fine, but if I see something weird from some obscure book that is clearly better than other alternatives, we'll have to talk."

At that point, if something unbalanced comes up (like a synthesist summoner or a broken feat) we talk about it. If the only reason for choosing it is because it is clearly unfair, no dice.

Worth noting that the logical arguments for these things are highly in the GM's favor when having the discussion.

Me: I don't think this trait is balanced.
Player: No! It is totally fair! It is no better than any other trait out there!
Me: Then you shouldn't have any problem with picking one of those other equally good traits then, right?
Player: Well, snap.

Based on the OP's attitude, this just seems like childish venting and not asking a legitimate question. "Killing LG paladin doucebags isn't evil! Screw you Joshua!" Ok then buddy.

To address the point for those actually interested in the discussion, a paradigm I use for looking at alignment issues.

SACRIFICE:
Good: Makes sacrifices for others.
Neutral: Does not make sacrifices for others, does not sacrifice others.
Evil: Sacrifices others for themselves.

NEIGHBOR:
Good: You would want to have them as a neighbor, or at least not be worried by them being your neighbor.
Neutral: You wouldn't care if they were your neighbor.
Evil: You would not want them as a neighbor.

THE NEWS:
Good: If I saw this person on the news I would sympathize with their actions.
Neutral: If I saw this person on the news, I wouldn't agree with their actions but I would understand them.
Evil: if I saw this person on the news, I would think they are a monster.

It isn't a perfect system, but it puts a good deal of "realism" behind what someone is doing. In this case.

SACRIFICE: Evil. Sacrificed others rather than deal with the situation in some other manner

NEIGHBOR: Evil. I would not want that barbarian as a neighbor.

NEWS: Evil. If I saw that barbarian on the evening news, I would want him punished to the full extent of the law.

People seem to think that only good characters don't use murder as a first resort, but I maintain that most neutrals don't either. My paradigm is that actively hurting others for convenience or profit is the essence of evil. Neutral just wants to do its own thing, while evil is willing to do its own thing- even if it hurts others.

I hold paladins to a VERY high standard in my group (and any good for that matter). In this case though I think there a wide variety of reasons that would justify this action on the part of the paladin.

A mental exercise I do is to look at possible extremes and see where the situation lies. In this case:

Scenario A: The child has been doing charity work for the last year and is eager to speak with his father.

Scenario B: The child has become a baby eating murderer and has slain thousands of innocents. When subdued he swears to burn down all nearby orphanages at his earliest convenience.

Scenario A, detaining the child is probably not OK. Scenario B though? Clearly this information coming to light outweighs the initial promise- I can't envision a paladin letting such a monster free even if he "promised". If you hire some commoners to build a bridge and they come across an ancient wyrm guarding the way to the site, you don't call them liars for backing off from the arrangement. The same applies here- unexpected findings can greatly influence otherwise simple matters.

This scenario here lies between the extremes as expected- were I the paladin I would play it like this:

"Sir, I promised to return your son as soon as I can. I stand by that. But until we know everything he knows then thousands of others may be in peril. I swear I will not hold your son one second longer than necessary to ensure I can keep everyone- including the two of you- safe."

Intent goes a long way in interpreting actions and how they fit with the Paladin code. Give it a read and consider how it relates to this situation.

I do not think this qualifies as an evil act based on the information provided.

Respect Authority- Not relevant based on info. provided

Act with honor- RELEVANT, honorable thing to do is to ensure you prevent greater evil (and to be forthright with the father on why you are doing what you are doing if at all possible). Breaking a promise comes into play here too. I think responsibility to honor commitments is tempered with reason based on discoveries made. The paladin inherently breaks this part of the code (and follows it) a little bit regardless of what decision he makes.

Help those in need- Provided they do not use the help for evil/chaotic ends... returning a son who may be able to help prevent evil/chaos falls under this I think.

Punish those that threaten innocent- Having to explain what you were doing seems like a pretty light punishment.

Based on all this I don't think there is a strong reason to remove powers. Really though the easiest thing to do is ask the player to explain their character's thought process and how it relates to the paladin code. "I must prevent the greater evil, even if I must delay my promise a few hours" is a stronger argument than "the wizard told me to."