Here is a a question that has been rattling around in my head since reading the 135 editorial... can you play a paladin in Savage Tide?
Not that I necessarily want to play a Paladin when the Savage Tide comes in, but is one of the core classes going to be incompatible with the last 4 adventures?
How is a Paladin's code of conduct going to mesh with the previewed interactions on the Outer Planes with other Demon Princes to bring down Demogorgon?
A Paladin battling through the fiends in Hell is an iconic D&D image (I flash back to the full-page pic in the AD&D PHB in the Paladin class description), but a Paladin cutting deals with Grazzt or Orcus?
Creative Director
|
Paladins can play Savage Tide as easilly as they could play Shackled City or Age of Worms. Will there be elements in Savage Tide that make paladins uncomfortable? Absoltely. Will there be encounters that become more dangerous and more difficult to accomplish if there's a paladin in the party. Certainly. That's nothing new, though, as far as D&D campaigns are concerned. Paladin players will definately be faced with some difficult moral and ethical decisions, but isn't that one of the things players of paladin characters expect (or even look forward to)?
Well that is a good question. To me if there is no other way to defeat the BBG and the only other option is to make a deal with a lesser evil then i would say that a Paladin would have to make the deal. Because if they don't more people will die. So the questions then become:
1)What is more important to a Paladin Saving the world from a Demon or his pride?
2) Is there another way to defeat the BBG without having to cut a deal with demons.
I would say only after they have exhausted every possible aspect of defeating the BBG without the help of other demons would the Paladin even consider cutting a deal.
Yeah, as James said above me, Moral debate, and to me that is the best part of playing a paladin.
Later
A>
It really comes down to what is better in the paladins eyes.
Paladins can play Savage Tide as easilly as they could play Shackled City or Age of Worms. Will there be elements in Savage Tide that make paladins uncomfortable? Absoltely. Will there be encounters that become more dangerous and more difficult to accomplish if there's a paladin in the party. Certainly. That's nothing new, though, as far as D&D campaigns are concerned. Paladin players will definately be faced with some difficult moral and ethical decisions, but isn't that one of the things players of paladin characters expect (or even look forward to)?
Thanks for the response James. I was just kinda thinking aloud when I posted that... I had read both the 135 Editorial and taken a look at the endgame AoW battles at the same time, and I got to thinking:
"While it would be a great RP opportunity for a Paladin character to give up his Paladin-ness in order to deal with a greater evil, that sure would make the end battles that much harder for the neutered Paladin-turned featless Fighter. Which would be that much more likely to turn the fallen Paladin into a featless meatshield for the PCs that still had their class abilities."
But I guess in the end, you could always just preemptively go Blackguard at the endgame if you were really worried about losing your Paladin status during the endgame of Savage Tide. I'm sure Orcus or Grazzt would love another Fallen Paladin ;-)
Paladins! ~licks my lips and gives an evil DM smile~ Mmmnnnnn! Tasty!
I would say paladins are totally compatible with Savage Tide. Have a paladin of an aquatic deity, such as Umberlee from Forgotten Realms or maybe Blibdoolpoolp. Be really trippy and have a paladin convert of the aboleth's elder deities. Mind you, I've drawn a complete blank on good ocean deities - a lot of them seem to be fairly vengeful, sacrifice-demanding types in the D&D cosmos.
I'd like to see an encounter that is set up so that it's easier to solve when you play a paladin. In all the adventures I've seen (including my own) being a paladin is almost never an advantage in a roleplaying situation. Also, how come the forces of light never pop in and help in these situations. There should be an encounter where a group of "sinful" (flawed, not evil) PCs have a chance to convince a platoon of devas or bralani to fight alongside with them in a battle against the forces of Demogorgon. In that diplomatic situation the paladin (if he is being played correctly) would be an asset instead of a disadvantage.
I would say paladins are totally compatible with Savage Tide. Have a paladin of an aquatic deity, such as Umberlee from Forgotten Realms or maybe Blibdoolpoolp. Be really trippy and have a paladin convert of the aboleth's elder deities. Mind you, I've drawn a complete blank on good ocean deities - a lot of them seem to be fairly vengeful, sacrifice-demanding types in the D&D cosmos.
Umberlee and Blibdoolpoolp are both CE, so I wouldn't recommend playing a paladin of either. ("Thanks for the spells, B$+#$ Queen, now DIE!!!" ;-) )
Some alternatives:
Ishtishia is the N god of elemental water.
Valkur the Mighty is a CG god of sailors.
Eldath is a NG god of quiet waters. See Sea of Fallen Stars for her undersea incarnation.
Deep Sashelas is a CG god of sea elves.
Triton is the NG god of tritons, IIRC.
Trishina is the dolphin consort of either Triton or Deep Sashelas.
You might need to create a "heretical order of paladins" for some of these to get around alignment restrictions, using the "Heretic of the Faith" feat from Power of Faerun.
--Eric
And remember, the church of fakey is always recruitin' paladins for its holy war against the wicked banjoites.
WHAT?!? Everybody knows the Church of Fakey is corrupted with evil. The paladins should join with the Banjoites!
Umberlee and Blibdoolpoolp are both CE, so I wouldn't recommend playing a paladin of either. ("Thanks for the spells, b*!%% Queen, now DIE!!!" ;-) )
It would be fun playing a convert from evil to good, though. That would be hoot, I think.
Good references, though! *claps for Eric* Though I shouldn't be surprised you'd know these things, considering your track record of books that you've authored/co-authored. I'm looking forward to "Dragons of Faerun" you know - I hope it's as fun as "Power of Faerun!"
|
That is an interesting point Hethansson, what would paladins do for mounts?
The problem with paladins is a lack of LN/LG/NG aquatic gods as the sea is so changeable and mutable it almost personifies chaos. Sorry, talking nonsense again :) In GH Opsrem is LN, and has protection as a domain, she seems appropriate.
It seems to me that any strict interpretation of the paladin code of conduct could cause major problems for paladins in Savage Tide... but not much more than it would in many, many other campagins. Paladins are easily one of the most frustrating classes, both for players and DMs, because they mechanically railroad the player into a specific sort of behavior that might be totally incompatable with the plot of a campaign.
This is why I never understand when DMs refuse to tell their players anything about the content of a campaign they're about to run. Players should always have some idea of the content and setting of any new campaign, because they deserve to be able to fit their characters to the game well.
Oh, and Craig - Stormwrack indicates that aquatic paladins can summon a hippocampus or porpoise for a mount.
with the right companions a stiffupperlipp paladin should do well, just slay all wannabe allies and interrogate them for their stories, simulcras/ice_assassin should do well indeed!
I mean, how better to take down demogorgon than going for a bt negotiatopn to orcus.. slay orcus, ice_assassin him & take controll of his armies, repeat for grazzt and finally for demogorgon himself!
And once you are done you can always have your simulcras force their abyssal hordes to become nice, plant flowers and such :D
|
The problem with paladins is a lack of LN/LG/NG aquatic gods as the sea is so changeable and mutable it almost personifies chaos. Sorry, talking nonsense again :) In GH Opsrem is LN, and has protection as a domain, she seems appropriate.
Yeah, but what everyone seems to be forgetting, is that just because it is a sea-based adventure path (at least in part) doesn't mean only sea-based deities will have an interest.
For Greyhawk - The sun shines down on the ocean, so Pelor would be a choice. And Heironeous would probably want to be involved just for the chance to take down Demogorgon. Atroa is a NG wind god. Rao has already proven effective against fiends. I'm sure there are more.
For FR - The aforementioned Eldath, maybe Helm, Ilmater, Lathandar would definitely be interested, and so would Tyr and maybe Torm.
So there should be no problem for someone wanting to play a Paladin.
There's always the alternate paladins in Unearthed Arcana. I've always been a big fan of the Paladin of Freedom (CG Pally). Also, throwing a Paladin of Tyranny (LE Pally) against the party every now and then is fun. I used Paladins of Slaughter (CE Pally) frequently in an Underdark/Drow campaign. They're a lot of fun. Pretty much a straight paladin with a different aura on each.
I've played a paladin or two in my day, and I find that the most memorable paladin characters are the ones who break the mold. My paladins tend to be very flawed, sometimes the DM has to work with the player on creating a unique personal journey.
I had a paladin who was raised in the faith of St. Cuthbert, but as he learned more of the merciless and harsh teachings, he spit and the bishop's face, admonished Cuthbert before the faithful, and struck out on his own believing his powers lost--only to later discover he was never a paladin of Cuthbert, but his own moral virtues. Paladin's without inflexable gods to dictate their paths have more wiggle room when it comes to the greater good, but it's a very fine line.
Or there was the alcoholic fallen paladin... he was faced with a choice between rescuing innocent children or saving his friends, he did the right thing and proceeded to blame himslef for the death of his comrades. The DM and I planned out the circumstances of his attonement and worked it into the plot. STAP seems to have a built-in fall in the later adventures, last minute redemption could make the final conflict that much better.
Or one could always embrace the darkness, go for the gold and hit the Blackguard. They say the road to Hell is paved in good intentions, why not play the charcter that proves it.
Well, paladins are my favorite PC of all time followed by clerics. I generally tend to play one just about every campaign or at least every other.
I would figure that paladins would be as compatible to play as any other class and by this I mean the whole "being lawful good doesn't mean being stupid" quote. I believe there was a Gygax article on this in an old issue of Dragon.The article basically saying that at times a LG character in general or a paladin ( at the time paladin's could only be LG ) in particular may have to bend a bit when it comes to making choices to further the cause of good. I think the example used was should a paladin slay a wounded baby dragon or wyvern or something like that despite the monster not being an immediate threat. The answer would be to kill the monster because it could be a potential threat to anyone or have babies that could be threats.
So long story short I would actually like to play a paladin in the Savage Tide when my group gets there.
hehhe, yup embracing the darkness might be nice indeed!
Aquire the saint template, turn level 20 as a paladin... and then, turning into a blackguard 21, saintly still no doubt :D
If you play your cards well, you might even manage a deathknight template on top of everything..
ps how is saving level 1 (presumably) innocents better than saving companions? If nothing else the companions atleast should have the ability to mass-resurect.
Not to mention betraying a bond of trust sends one directly to the deepest of hell!
Well, riddle me this: if there's no Paladin there on the Isle of Dread, then who's supposed to ride the celestial Triceratops in a mad cavalry charge against the fiendish 2-headed Tyrannosaurus with pitch black skin, and fiery stripes like angry jagged cracks of redhot magma?
Is there a joke here that I'm somehow missing?
|
Well, riddle me this: if there's no Paladin there on the Isle of Dread, then who's supposed to ride the celestial Triceratops in a mad cavalry charge against the fiendish 2-headed Tyrannosaurus with pitch black skin, and fiery stripes like angry jagged cracks of redhot magma?Is there a joke here that I'm somehow missing?
Nope. I just talk crazy sometimes. I always wanted a celestial triceratops is all.
Nope. I just talk crazy sometimes. I always wanted a celestial triceratops is all.
A noble desire, to be certain.
The paladin question reminds me of Vecna Lives!, the adventure where the PCs are expected to summon Iuz to fight Vecna (which the adventure specifically calls out as making the paladin an immediate ex-paladin). Sticky moral stuff. But that's why people play paladins I suppose.
The paladin question reminds me of Vecna Lives!, the adventure where the PCs are expected to summon Iuz to fight Vecna (which the adventure specifically calls out as making the paladin an immediate ex-paladin). Sticky moral stuff. But that's why people play paladins I suppose.
If there's no sensible way to win beyond an irredeemably evil act, that's not called a "moral dilemma," it's called "railroading."
I hope that Savage Tide can avoid such things. But Dungeon is doubtless more mature than one of my old DMs, who used to hunt Paladins for sport...
Was this an impromptu Wil Wheaton meeting?
What really makes it interesting is the "Book of Exaulted Deeds" which states that while <i>normal</i> morality might be argued here and there about the details and such, in a D&D setting the ends do *NOT* justify the means. The sole reason being that if one were to consider morality as negotiable, it invites a certain greyness to it all- making it a commodity as it were. Basically, they're not saying it's wrong. Just... nuetral. So can the paladin make the deal with demons to fight the big baddy? Sure! Does he loose his statues? Yep! But if that's what he believes is right, then that's just the kind of sacrifice that the situation calls for. Now, I would <i>certainly</i> allow attonement, redemption, or even a rebuild to a fallen paladin who quests for it if the player behind the PC where making the effort.
And I would be sadly disappointed in the player that said "Heck no I don't fight the evil! I'd loose all my cool powers and holy mumbo-jumbo."
Oh, and this applies not only to paladins, but of every character of the Good alignment. Sure, some just change a letter from "G" to "N", but Exaulted characters can feel the bite of that just as harshly.
Simply put; a paladin's path is not easy. If you call it "railroading" to say a paladin faces the risk of loosing his powers, then you're coddling the PC's. They then are railroading you. Hmm....
I have played a Paladin who found out only after several missions for his lord that his lord was actually corrupt (when the lord slew his would-be wife so the paladin couldn't have her). He then swore vengeance (he was in a chamber filled with the lord's lackeys, whom he couldn't take on at that point). The Paladin left, thought he'd lost his paladin status for having betrayed his word to his sworn lord, and then found out that he was still a paladin - he was a paladin to Heieroneous, who was just as offended at the turn of events as the paladin himself - such was NOT an honorable exchange!
Said paladin was then faced with a rather snarky wizardess who felt that paladins would, by nature, lead the rest of the party into ambush and death at the next battle, whereupon he would stand up and call down the enemy rather than sneak around and destroy them. He didn't. In fact, he advocated that the party use the tactics at hand because the force they were facing FAR outstripped the party's capability and because ambush was the only way to ensure that the innocents in the town the force was going to attack would survive.
Some might say that he deserved to lose his title. I would not. He was serving the greater good by saving the town in question and by destroying by whatever means necessary, the forces of evil, which would go on to ruin more and more towns if they were not stopped here and now by ambush tactics.
When it came time to face their leader, he stepped forward, announced who he was and why he had come, and proceeded to do battle, even though he was outclassed. He nearly died and had to be pulled away from the battle afterwards by his party, but he did the right thing and was rewarded for it.
What I'm saying here is that a Paladin can do whatever he deems is necessary if it fulfills the duty he has to Life and Innocents. The Paladin who makes a deal with Orcus or Grazzt to destroy Demogorgon is likely going to need an Atonement later, but I wouldn't remove his/her powers simply because he/she chose not to take on a Power he could not hope to surviv or, if by choosing diplomatic means over combat, he can bring about the destruction of another Evil power.
Yes, he will need Atonement afterwards for his dealings with Evil Incarnate, but unless he falls entirely, he's still a Paladin, doing whatever is necessary to save the most innocents as possible.
My $.02.
Syrinx
Simply put; a paladin's path is not easy. If you call it "railroading" to say a paladin faces the risk of loosing his powers, then you're coddling the PC's. They then are railroading you. Hmm....
I'm not talking about "coddling" the players.
I'm talking about doing the extent of saying "HAY GUYZ, LOSE ALL YOUR POWERS FOREVER OR THE UNIVERSE IS DOOMED! LOLOLOLOL!"
What's a Paladin supposed to do? Say "Well, you know, my god would be pretty peeved if I summoned Iuz, even if failing to do so would allow Vecna to subjugate all reality and very likely rob him of his worshippers for all time..."
Mind you, I've had bitter expirences regarding Paladins. Due mainly to the aforementioned insane DM who used to go OUT OF HIS WAY to either kill Paladins or make them lose their powers. I'd never play one for fear of the DM deciding that giving me two choices, lose all my powers forever or die a horrible screaming demise, is merely "morally ambigious."
But again, anyone who has read my postings in the past knows that my D&D career has been a long and rather bitter one.
IMO, playing a paladin should never be easy and it behooves the DM who has a paladin PC in his game to provide many morally and ethically challenging situations. If the paladin never has a chance to struggle with his code and make difficult decisions, well, he/she is just being jipped out of the best (and worst) reasons for being one.
Oh, and one of my players since I've known him plays nothing BUT paladins and I've seen nothing in the material of the AP to lead me to believe that the paladin class isn't compatible with the theme in later stages of the campaign. He's going to have to suck it up and I'm sure he'll be vowing to come back and deal with the other bad guys once Demogorgon is taken care of. And that's what makes a great reason to expand well into epic levels.
I know this kinda off the subject, but why do Paladins have to be LG. Didn't they at one time have paladins for all Gods. I think they should be at least Lawful, but has to match their Gods alignment. Example, a paladin of Wee Jas must be LN.
But back to the thread. If you wanted to run a Paladin in STAP it actually should push his faith to the extreme. What great chances for role-playing. Should be a great experience.
If you have a character who is wanting to play this class, he should be a very experienced player and do not tell him about the road (demons) ahead. Tell him it will be challenging though.
I know this kinda off the subject, but why do Paladins have to be LG. Didn't they at one time have paladins for all Gods. I think they should be at least Lawful, but has to match their Gods alignment. Example, a paladin of Wee Jas must be LN.
There have been articles in Dragon and some rules in the recent Unearthed Arcana (not to be confused with the first edition Unearthed Arcana or Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed) on paladins not of LG alignment. But in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D and in 3.0 and 3.5 D&D (not counting optional rules) paladins have always been LG. The old "basic" D&D (from the early 80's) did have an option for a fighter at?/past? name level (9th) to become a paladin if they were of a lawful alignment. However it must be noted, that in "basic" D&D, there was only one alignment axis, Lawful-Chaotic, no Good-Evil axis.
One of my players is making a paladin of freedom who goes into Legendary Captain, so I sure hope they work out. I think that some paladins, if the conditions were dire, would work with Orcus or some other Evil creature. As long as they're not doing too much to further it's goals, too, then I don't think they'd have a problem.
I was wondering how a Chaotic Good character who is all about freedom and individual liberty would really fit in as a captain, in command of a crew, and then I thought of Mal from Firefly. He's the poster boy for chaotic good but he's still a really strong, firm leader.
Nope. I just talk crazy sometimes. I always wanted a celestial triceratops is all.Well, riddle me this: if there's no Paladin there on the Isle of Dread, then who's supposed to ride the celestial Triceratops in a mad cavalry charge against the fiendish 2-headed Tyrannosaurus with pitch black skin, and fiery stripes like angry jagged cracks of redhot magma?Is there a joke here that I'm somehow missing?
Sometimes! Heath have you changed considerably since you left the fair sunshine state? You always talk crazy!
Paladins can play Savage Tide as easilly as they could play Shackled City or Age of Worms. Will there be elements in Savage Tide that make paladins uncomfortable? Absoltely. Will there be encounters that become more dangerous and more difficult to accomplish if there's a paladin in the party. Certainly. That's nothing new, though, as far as D&D campaigns are concerned. Paladin players will definately be faced with some difficult moral and ethical decisions, but isn't that one of the things players of paladin characters expect (or even look forward to)?
I love RPing moral conflict and all... but from just a practical standpoint, supposing a Paladin gets far enough in the STAP that they're talking to Iggwilv etc, is there any option left to them at that point? Aren't players pretty much required to make the various (evil) deals such that they can confront the big D? Seems like making most (if not any) of those deals would just be a deepening fall for a Paladin.
Is there a way for any party member to win through the AP without making the evil agreements at that point? As an example, a Paladin might try to put conditions on Iggwilv's demand for a future favor - could he get away with it, or is s/he locked into an open-ended "anything you want, Iggwilv"? And later into it, how could a Paladin possibly interact in Malcanthet's court? Would s/he just stay on the boat?
I'm just trying to be ready for it when this part of the AP happens. I'm not arguing that I *shouldn't* DM someone's fall, but I'm just wondering how a clever pally might or could weave through the STAP's "dealmaking" without losing their abilities. Not having DMed an abyssal adventure quite like this, I'd love some ideas.
This topic might have some good points about Paladins & STAP too (at least if I remember it correctly, I didn't re-read it completely now)
The big thing about Paladins that a lot of people forget is that they're LAWFUL good. Lawful implies structure, hierarchy, tradition, and organised codes of behaviour. A paladin can (and should!) draw on all these when making his decision, rather than play it by ear and simply hope he gets it right.
A high-level paladin PC, by the time he hits the Abyss, should have a pretty damn huge Knowledge (religion) modifier, plus possibly something like a Phylactery of Faithfulness, and access (maybe through henchmen, superiors, confessors, or allies) to spells like Commune. He/she can't be the first paladin ever to face this sort of situation, so probably there's precedent in church writings (recallable via Knowledge (religion) check), and if all else fails, a couple of communes or a long conversation with a conjured solar should straighten things out.
Basically, what this boils down to is 'work with the GM'. An 18th+ level paladin certainly has the means to discover where the limits placed by his god are (and the GM will need to have sat down and though about this beforehand). All he needs to do then is make sure he stays within those limits.
Easier said than done? Maybe, but at least he'll know where he stands that way...
|
Creative Director
|
Why is it that people get caught up on how paladins can't not fight evil foes, but they always hang out with chaotic foes? Is there a double-standard? Are paladins not expected to be as lawful as they are good? Shouldn't paladins be as anti-elf as they are anti-demon? At the very least, shouldn't paladins be as anti-elf as they are anti-devil?
Paladins & Savage Tide? Are they compatible?
As written? No.
The thing I think people are missing here is that Paladins are not Lawful Good Fighters. Paladins are exemplars.
The Lawful Good Fighter is compatible with the "lesser of two evils" path, the Paladin is not. A Paladin does not bargain with demons or devils, beings which by their very nature are incapable of furthering a positive outcome; the possibility of temptation is simply too great. Is removing Demogorgon with the help of evil a good act, or would it simply create a power vacuum into which your new "allies" would step?
The Paladin does not consort with fiends and the evil sorceress, no matter how helpful their advice may seem, nor does he or she blindly allow their steadfast companions to do so by merely "waiting on the ship (jeez, what could be taking them so long in there with crazed Demon Princess....)."
Honestly, I'd seriously doubt how much stock they would even put into the aid given by an alliance with the whirling fury, a known fomenter of chaos!
While the Paladin doesn't deal with evil, they certainly don't wait idly by for evil to act either. In the race against evil, no quarter can be given. Similarly, the Paladin doesn't waste their life in a sacrifice they know is ultimately futile (as opposed to one which wins the day); they recruit from like minded individuals. They convert! If the Paladin is genuinely convinced Iggwilv's actions are repentant and not self serving, then aid might be grudgingly accepted, assuming she relinquishes her demon-based ability bonuses for the duration of the conflict. If not, it is your job to provide them with better options. Recruit demons to fight demons? That's hardly a challenge. Convincing the Heavenly Hosts to storm / occupy the Abyss, that's a challenge worthy of a high level Paladin.
Let's look at a real life example:
At work, I do whatever is necessary to get the job done. Customer happy? Yes. Job completed? Yeppers. Rules bent? Almost assuredly. Good employee? Depends who you ask.
Down side-> Typically being remonstrated for the inability to work within established guidelines, as opposed to being praised for original thinking.
Coworker to the right of me. Follows rules only, refuses to operate outside company parameters for any reason.
Customer happy? Possibly. Job completed? Possibly. Rules bent? Never. Good employee? Yes.
Down side-> Tasks often left uncompleted while waiting for all components to be within spec. Some jobs unfinishable until guidelines are updated.
Do we worth together: Yes. Do we hate each other’s guts? Yes. Do we think of each other as good employees? Yes.
I would definitely put him in the Paladin category. Unfortunately, while we can work together towards a goal, our methods are often so incompatible that we'd love nothing more than to gouge out each other's eyes in the mean time.
mwbeeler, that's a view on paladins that would make any of your paladins proud :D
It's also a very strict and specific view of paladins - you can easily play them differently while still sticking to what is written about them.
It all depends on your personal style and image of a paladin.
I think it's fascinating that there is so much turmoil over paladins in the AP. How about evil characters and the trip to Chaotic-Good land.
It goes both ways, and when you are at such high levels, characters have to make decisions about what they want to do. If they don't want to deal with Orcus, it isn't that hard to replace that part of the adventure with a trip to Valhalla for a bunch of warriors, or Celestia, or whatever.
Paladins, though, shouldn't be so intolerant that they wouldn't even talk to Iggwilv. Any source of information can be useful, and not being willing to be tempted suggests weakness to me.
I think it's fascinating that there is so much turmoil over paladins in the AP. How about evil characters and the trip to Chaotic-Good land.
....
Paladins, though, shouldn't be so intolerant that they wouldn't even talk to Iggwilv. Any source of information can be useful, and not being willing to be tempted suggests weakness to me.
For one - noone has to go to Arcadia, that is an "option", which not every group may want to take.
BUT - Paladins have to endure the entire "railroad-yard" of hurt that is "Well of Darkness" - which is unfortunately hardly optional. Basically, for paladins (well for most groups anyway, IMHO, otherwise there is little enjoyment to be found in that part of the STAP. YMMV ) to get through that in any constructive and self-preservant wayIn general, I subscribe to the view that paladins serve 'Good', their patron deity's agenda and its codification (Law) and emulate these ideals throughout their lives, to be true to themselves.
BUT - lawful good does not mean "naive", "stupid" or "soft-hearted". To "do Good" does not means causing "no possible" harm, not deceiving, mistreating or bluffing (as many loving parents can attest - or, just ask Hiob about it...sorry if I impiunged on someone's relgious feelings there...), not even tolerating some evil to exist, just as long as one does not thereby grant it the "right to exist unchallenged". Also, there may always be the chance of redemption or turning from evil (which say, a paladin of Lathander is all about - optimism and believe in the inner worthiness of someone!).
Taking loot (in order to fight crime/evil with it) is not inherently un-lawful, lying to a villain is not necessarily etc. Just check you country's applicable legal code - and current societies are far more lawfully organized than any medieval religion or ethos ! And historical "honour" is not what is lawful, it is about keeping face and appearances.
By a code similar to that (and perhaps some considerations as to your patron diety's specific goals and premises - talk to your GM about it, it may yield interesting results//ingame period of prayers and contemplation of ones decisions ) a paladin can easily roleplay through the STAP.
Whether that makes it a viable or interesting class to do so... that's an entirely different matter.
The view of "law" of St. Cuthbert, Heiroeous, Bane, Tyr, Kelemvor, Torm, Azuth and the Archdukes of Hell will vary. "Law" is a (variably rendered ) principle, not an absolute. And not every law is just, or fair, or carefully drafted *wicked grin*
Why is it that people get caught up on how paladins can't not fight evil foes, but they always hang out with chaotic foes? Is there a double-standard? Are paladins not expected to be as lawful as they are good? Shouldn't paladins be as anti-elf as they are anti-demon? At the very least, shouldn't paladins be as anti-elf as they are anti-devil?
Although it's presented as such in DnD, I don't think anyone really thinks that the Law-Chaos axis is equivalent to the Good-Evil axis, or plays that way. For one thing, Law-Chaos doesn't really translate well into absolutes, unlike Good and Evil. Law, or "order" might be a better word really, varies from region to region. When it comes down to it, everyone will ultimately ask "well, is X a good law or not?" unless they themselves are planar exemplars. So that means in practice, the law-chaos axis is always used to color or flavor the good-evil axis. People do this because no one really likes the fact that good and evil are so oppositional, so black and white. Functionally, the axis of Good-Evil always trumps the Law-Chaos axis.
That's why a paladin (unless he's lawful stupid) would never go into the Elven Court and confront their King. Sure, they're "chaotic", but they have their own laws and moral guidelines, and that's order. From a certain point of view. They may be loosely codified, or fluid in their interpretation, but the societies of chaotic beings like elves aren't randomly chaotic in their approach to societal mores and norms. A paladin may be disappointed by this apparent randomness of life and the lack of concepts like "duty to uphold codified laws" in a village of wild elves, but he isn't going to get all flustered and start fights. He's not LN or LE, after all, and wild elves aren't all that likely to have a Law Library for him to consult anyway. So while he might be irritated by an elf who does chaotic things every now and then, he's not going to go postal unless the elf dips into the big bad bucket of evil.
Similarly, a demon or devil gains instant attention from a paladin simply because of their evil intent and actions. Adhering to the letter of the law for a devil isn't going to make the baddie look any better to the pally. On the contrary, the devil's letter-of-the-law machinations to benefit the cause of evil might serve to infuriate the pally and be even more of a reason to kick some devil where the sun don't shine.
Law-Chaos adds flavor to Good-Evil, changing black and white into shades of grey and full technicolor.
One of the possible things about paladins is self-sacrifice. If they are willing to give up their divine connect to save the world, that ironically fulfills one of the implied tennents of being a paladin...
Yeah, but that's been done to death. (Heh!) I'm hoping for some novel ideas that aren't too terribly overused.