It's hard to say without knowing who his god was.
In my own homebrew, he'd have been fine with just about any god, except 2. Those two gods (both LG) have some seriously stiff necks about being sneaky.
One would have had minor issues with what he did, but it would have been more along the lines of him having some dreams and lectures in his sleep about talking his compatriots into, if they are going to sneak around like that, use non-lethal spells so the perpetrators can be tried and made an example of in a court of law.
The other flat out forbids sneaky stuff like that, under any circumstances. He's extremely inflexible, and his paladin would have gotten backhanded in the powers department until he atoned.
Now, I have my paladin codes all worked up, so that my players can read them ahead of time, so they know what the gods are like and what the codes require. I don't like slapping people down unexpectedly.
I've talked to the player and we're working on getting the code completed before the next session so there's no ambiguity.
I've talked to the player and we're working on getting the code completed before the next session so there's no ambiguity.It's hard to say without knowing who his god was.
In my own homebrew, he'd have been fine with just about any god, except 2. Those two gods (both LG) have some seriously stiff necks about being sneaky.
One would have had minor issues with what he did, but it would have been more along the lines of him having some dreams and lectures in his sleep about talking his compatriots into, if they are going to sneak around like that, use non-lethal spells so the perpetrators can be tried and made an example of in a court of law.
The other flat out forbids sneaky stuff like that, under any circumstances. He's extremely inflexible, and his paladin would have gotten backhanded in the powers department until he atoned.
Now, I have my paladin codes all worked up, so that my players can read them ahead of time, so they know what the gods are like and what the codes require. I don't like slapping people down unexpectedly.
Honestly, that's the best way to do it.
Here's a thread where I worked out the details on my god's paladin codes. It might help.
@mdt
Thanks! I'll check it out.
I don't think the Paladin has done anything wrong at all.
As already suggested earlier, the hostages were not 'honourable foes' and its not like there was any confusion as to their 'guilt'. Acting like a bonehead and walking up making demands would simply have meant innocent lives were lost.
Would you punish the Paladin for being a douche and causing the unnecessary loss of innocent lives because his pride and ego dictated he made a big show of confronting the bad guys?
See?
We can argue both ways.
As already suggested earlier, the hostages were not 'honourable foes' and its not like there was any confusion as to their 'guilt'. Acting like a bonehead and walking up making demands would simply have meant innocent lives were lost.
Agreed, the hostages were not honorable foes.
They weren't dishonorable foes either. :)
Thoughts?
Why do people have such a g%!*~@n fetish for making paladins fall?
Why do people have such a g#&&&&n fetish for making paladins fall?
The punitive nature of our society.
The people trying to make the Paladins fall are the same kids that wrote names on the board for the teacher.
The same people will oddly enough let a CN character knife someones granny for a pack of Oreo's and then go 'oh well I guess he is CN so thats in character and not technically evil', but then club the Paladin to death at the slightest (percieved) provocation.
Why do people have such a g#&&&&n fetish for making paladins fall?The punitive nature of our society.
The people trying to make the Paladins fall are the same kids that wrote names on the board for the teacher.
The same people will oddly enough let a CN character knife someones granny for a pack of Oreo's and then go 'oh well I guess he is CN so thats in character and not technically evil', but then club the Paladin to death at the slightest (percieved) provocation.
I mean, I've never seen a thread that went something like "The barbarian kept his promise SHOULD I MAKE HIM FALL??" or "The monk laughed at a joke the halfling told CHAOTIC ACTION HOW DO I RUIN HIS CHARACTER??"
|
Here's a thread where I worked out the details on my god's paladin codes. It might help.
Could also watch Rutger Hauer's character in Hobo With a Shotgun for tips -- great study of LG vs CE disguised as a cheapass grindhouse film.
In order for me to decide if the paladin has fallen I would need to see the Paladin's Code that you and the player agreed on before play started....Could you post this please?
I think the paladins action did not break his code. But he should perhaps seek a few words with the sorcerer.
From the PFSRD:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
The first paragraph even seems to imply that the occasional chaotic act should be ok.
But check out the section about associates with reference to the sorcerer.
So in short - no problem at all. The Sorc isn't 'evil'.
|
Rule 1 of DMing a Paladin: If there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind that a Paladin broke their code, they didn't.
Rule 2 of DMing a Paladin: If there is no doubt whatsoever in your mind that a Paladin break their code, ask the player.
+1
I would also add a Rule 3: Would you spend any time debating the matter, if the PC in question were a LG Fighter, Cleric, Ranger, Inquisitor, etc., etc.
What about a LG wizard? Or sorcerer?
Would they be expected to walk into the enemy camp, fully visible, with all defences down (because such measures as stealth and magical aid are dishonourable), and ask for an audience with the leader?
If not, why not?
Rule 1 of DMing a Paladin: If there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind that a Paladin broke their code, they didn't.
Rule 2 of DMing a Paladin: If there is no doubt whatsoever in your mind that a Paladin break their code, ask the player.
+1
I would also add a Rule 3: Would you spend any time debating the matter, if the PC in question were a LG Fighter, Cleric, Ranger, Inquisitor, etc., etc.
What about a LG wizard? Or sorcerer?
Would they be expected to walk into the enemy camp, fully visible, with all defences down (because such measures as stealth and magical aid are dishonourable), and ask for an audience with the leader?If not, why not?
Because a LG anything other than Paladin does not have a code that is specifically more restrictive than the normal alignment requirements. Nor do any of the others you listed have class abilities specifically tied to keeping that code.
The closest thing you can find are Barbarian and Monk. If someone was playing a Barbarian as always obeying the law in town, acting chivelrous, being very uptight and straightlaced all the time, I'd talk to him, and if it continued, his alignment would change and I'd tell him to multiclass.
If a monk was being played as flighty, untrustworthy, breaking the law, getting drunk and stealing from his friends to pay his drug addiction, then I'd talk to the player, and if it continued, I'd bump his alignment down to Neutral and tell him to multiclass.
A Paladin, having that stricter code, ends up losing his powers long before he has to multiclass.
Now, I'm sure someone is going to scream bloody murder and accuse me of intentionally setting up the pally to fail because I hate pallies. I don't, but the rules are the rules. If your Paladin steals from someone, or kills someone in a tavern brawl (not a tavern knife fight, I'm talking about the weekly tavern dust up that everyone uses fists for, but the pally uses gauntlets for), or leaves an innocent to die because it's inconvenient or murders a prisoner for the same reason, then yeah, I'm pounding him hard.
Thoughts?Why do people have such a g*~!##n fetish for making paladins fall?
Like I've said numerous times before. I don't have a fetish towards having a paladin fall. I posted this under the advice section because I was looking for insights into what kind of strategies are acceptable for a paladin to follow under the generally assumed code that is taken on when choosing the class.
This situation in particular was more so about the paladin attacking the defenders unaware. Obviously the original plan had gone awry and as such people have suggested that the paladin should discuss the fireball ambush with the sorcerer. The paladin cannot be faulted for what someone else in the party and I agree.
All I am asking for is some advice when these things happen.
Before this fight the party also decapitated the corpses of their enemies and mounted the heads on the battlements of the local keep as a show of power.
|
|
To Sarrion,
You've said that you're going to thrash out a specific code with the player, and that's fine.
You're right that it's something that would have been better done earlier, but that's something we all learn.
Don't become disheartened by some of the negative posts; when you start any paladin/alignment thread, it gets answered by posters who bring a lot of baggage over from other threads, and games they've witnessed, so they're not necessarily having a go at you, just venting their exasperation at the sum total of all the games they've seen over the years, that crashed and burned because someone insisted on a strict Lawful Stupid interpretation.
My concern was with the paladin using invisibility to ambush the enemy and wondering if it was an honorable tactic to use. I don't question the intentions being honorable at all.
Well I don't see how using invisibility is somehow dishonorable. It lists not lying, not cheating, etc. If you consider using what amounts to a tool against evil as cheating, then so too should be using a sword, or anything else that gives you any sort of advantage beyond what your bare hands give you (this would also include armor), unless, I guess, your enemies had all that. Of course, your enemies are also allowed things you aren't (poison, despite it's benevolent uses, and various spells you cannot access) so you won't live very long.
Likewise, if being invisible constitutes as dishonorable, then you might want to let your paladin know that the rest of these spells are dishonorable:
Enlarge person (gives an unfair advantage), mirror image (cowardly trickery), charm person (probably some sort of cheating), blur or displacement (cowardly trickery), stoneskin (unfair advantage), barkskin (see stoneskin), etc.
Likewise, the Paladin should probably also not wield any equipment, and definitely not masterwork or magical equipment, because that might give him an advantage that could be seen as unfair or dishonorable. This goes doubly so for anything that allows him to move, or prevents effects from working on him, 'cause that's just not fair/honorable.
Now if any of this sounds completely insane...well it should, and that's the answer to your question.
@Ashiel - So what are some general tactics that you would consider dishonorable? Would you say there is no such thing as a dishonorable tactic as long as the paladin is fighting evil?
I would think that poisoning someone outside of combat is considered dishonorable. Would a coup de grace be dishonorable on an unconscious target?
***edited to fix spelling*
@Ashiel - So what are some general tactics that you would consider dishonorable? Would you say there is no such thing as a dishonorable tactic as long as the paladin is fighting evil?
Dishonorable tactic? Something that strikes at someone dishonestly. If the Paladin threatens the villain's daughter, for example, to get at the villain, that would be a dishonorable tactic. Beating prisoners, attacking to induce suffering (intentional maiming to cause pain or psychological damage), or using others to save your own neck (see villain's daughter as meat-shield).
Honestly, anything that seems outright nefarious.
However, please note that I do not equate opportunistic with dishonorable. If you're in the middle of a fight against an orc blackguard in a storeroom, and you slash open a sack of flour to blind the orc, or throw flour in the orc's eyes, that's opportunistic. That's no different than preforming a bull-rush to knock a villain over a railing, or down some stairs.
Paladins are in fact warriors. They fight. They kill. According to their lore, they're pretty darn good at it, and "it" includes dishing out some righteous judgment, as well as protecting innocents. I'm not saying that they kill willy-nilly. Quite the contrary. I think they do what is the best thing that can be done. If ending a fight quickly involves turning invisible and using coup de grace on the head cultist while she sleeps, then he has succeeded and probably prevented the fight from even starting.
Being honorable, to me, is acting with respect in all things. It does not mean intentionally handicapping yourself, as that likewise puts innocents at risk by increasing the likelihood of causing your own death and the continued risk of the villain upon the world. A Paladin can be smart, and be respectful of all things, including their enemies.
Respecting your enemy, I feel, is ultimately the key to being honorable in combat.
I would think that poisoning someone outside of combat is considered dishonorable. Would a coup de grace be dishonorable on an unconscious target?
A coup de grace is traditionally a mercy blow. It's a killing shot that is done quickly and efficiently so as to kill with the least amount of pain. If you were going to kill someone, or something, this would theoretically be the most humane and honorable way to do so.
===========
In short, 90% of tactics in D&D are merely tactical. Flanking is fighting as a team. Combat Maneuvers are A-Ok. Using magic and spells is fine. Heck, even throwing badguys over the edge of a building is legit. However, when you start killing off the villain's civilian servants, attacking his friends or family to get at him, acting without mercy or respect and dignity, then I would begin to question where the Paladin's heart was.
My concern was with the paladin using invisibility to ambush the enemy and wondering if it was an honorable tactic to use. I don't question the intentions being honorable at all.
In the US civil war, British troops marched in their standard line formations, wearing their bright red and blue uniforms. The not-yet-American fighters didn't. They hid, they wore hides and furs and earth-tone clothes. They used stealth, and were derided for being dishonorable on the field of combat.
Today we view the British insistence on their way of waging war to be foolish. To a certain degree, you do what you need to do to win. Feinting, distracting, using illusions... all honorable in my book. Taking (innocent) hostages, using meat-shields, letting others fight your battles while you hide... those are dishonorable.
As far as I'm concerned, if a Paladin knew walking into Hell as a suicide bomber would free every damned soul in the place... he'd be dishonorable to not do it.
My concern was with the paladin using invisibility to ambush the enemy and wondering if it was an honorable tactic to use. I don't question the intentions being honorable at all.In the US civil war, British troops marched in their standard line formations, wearing their bright red and blue uniforms. The not-yet-American fighters didn't. They hid, they wore hides and furs and earth-tone clothes. They used stealth, and were derided for being dishonorable on the field of combat.
Today we view the British insistence on their way of waging war to be foolish. To a certain degree, you do what you need to do to win. Feinting, distracting, using illusions... all honorable in my book. Taking (innocent) hostages, using meat-shields, letting others fight your battles while you hide... those are dishonorable.
As far as I'm concerned, if a Paladin knew walking into Hell as a suicide bomber would free every damned soul in the place... he'd be dishonorable to not do it.
That argument actually works better against the Paladin than for the Paladin. As you go further and further back in history, those who were the biggest combatents had the most elaborate rules regarding warfare. There were certain ways you could do things, and certain ways you could not. A serf that raised his weapon to a Knight was just as likely to get cut down by his own Knights than the enemy Knights. Serfs just didn't fight Knights (that changed over time, but at one time, it was like that). Knights fought Knights, and when one Knight won, he usually ransomed the losing Knight for his armor and weapons. Which were usually then sold back to the losing Knight after the battle, or war.
A Knight that struck down a surrendered Knight would have been challenged to one duel after another until he died by other Knights, even his own allies.
So, that sort of rigidity in thought and tactics has been around for a very very long time, I don't think having some paladins that follow that rigidity is all that strange at all.
So, that sort of rigidity in thought and tactics has been around for a very very long time, I don't think having some paladins that follow that rigidity is all that strange at all.Some, maybe, but that's a player choice. You shouldn't force every paladin to obey those rules.
Yes I should, if he picks a god that has those rules.
Each god should have it's own paladin code, and that code might be loose in one area and rigid and inflexible in another area. As long as the player knows up front that choosing Gorman Greatforge as his Paladin's god (from my own homebrew example) means his god hates any sort of trickery or deceit, both in and out of combat, then yeah, it's perfectly fine for me to rip his powers away if he throws dirt in somebodies eyes during a battle.
A coup de grace is traditionally a mercy blow. It's a killing shot that is done quickly and efficiently so as to kill with the least amount of pain. If you were going to kill someone, or something, this would theoretically be the most humane and honorable way to do so.
This statement is completely false. In history a coup de grace is a mercy blow. In D&D, it almost never is. When was the last time you saw a PC use a coup de grace to ease the passing of a fallen foe? That is, when has a player performed a coup de grace on a dying foe below 0hp?
For most players, the answer is never. Why waste a full-round action on something that is already out of the combat? Unless you have reason to believe that this foe might get back up, in which case, you're not "easing their passing" so much as "making sure they're dead."
In D&D a coup de grace is not a mercy blow, it's a method of dispatching a "helpless" foe. I'm not saying it's honorable or dishonorable, but don't call it something it's not.
A coup de grace is traditionally a mercy blow.This statement is completely false.
You are splitting the finest hair by picking at his word choice. Poor form under any circumstance. It isn't "completely" false, it's simply not the best word choice for making his point. To insult someone's intelligence for the sake of making your own point more valid... just not nice, sir. Not nice at all.
And for the record, there are two people in my group (myself and another) who have played at least one character each who would go around after battles either healing up or mercy-killing enemies below 0 hit points. More often than not we ended their suffering and had our characters perform final rites. There's actually a third, my girlfriend; plays druids exclusively, and will always try to slay animals as quickly and painlessly as possible if she absolutely can't avoid combat with them, but that's only with animals.
This statement is completely false. In history a coup de grace is a mercy blow. In D&D, it almost never is.
And where in history did the persistent buggers get up as a result of a passing Cure spell? :p
|
So, that sort of rigidity in thought and tactics has been around for a very very long time, I don't think having some paladins that follow that rigidity is all that strange at all.Some, maybe, but that's a player choice. You shouldn't force every paladin to obey those rules.Yes I should, if he picks a god that has those rules.
Each god should have it's own paladin code, and that code might be loose in one area and rigid and inflexible in another area. As long as the player knows up front that choosing Gorman Greatforge as his Paladin's god (from my own homebrew example) means his god hates any sort of trickery or deceit, both in and out of combat, then yeah, it's perfectly fine for me to rip his powers away if he throws dirt in somebodies eyes during a battle.
That's still a player choice. They are making a conscious the choice to follow that god, that's the acceptance of the rules that come with it. Now, if a paladin player chooses something else, even an ideal, you shouldn't hold that one god's rules to that player, because they didn't ask for it.
A coup de grace is traditionally a mercy blow. It's a killing shot that is done quickly and efficiently so as to kill with the least amount of pain. If you were going to kill someone, or something, this would theoretically be the most humane and honorable way to do so.This statement is completely false. In history a coup de grace is a mercy blow. In D&D, it almost never is. When was the last time you saw a PC use a coup de grace to ease the passing of a fallen foe? That is, when has a player performed a coup de grace on a dying foe below 0hp?
For most players, the answer is never. Why waste a full-round action on something that is already out of the combat? Unless you have reason to believe that this foe might get back up, in which case, you're not "easing their passing" so much as "making sure they're dead."
In D&D a coup de grace is not a mercy blow, it's a method of dispatching a "helpless" foe. I'm not saying it's honorable or dishonorable, but don't call it something it's not.
I suppose that if you were rescuing captive from the den of a cult that was planning to sacrifice them, and you found your enemy asleep or otherwise easily defeated with the least risk, you should instead start hacking away at her arms and feet so that she wakes up and lets you kill her the "normal way". Or perhaps you should actually nudge her, tell the evil priestess that you're here to kill her and rescue the hostages, but you're going to wait outside her room for her to dress, grab any weapons she wants, cast a few buffs, and then come meet you outside her room and engage you in mortal combat; then repeat for the next X number of evil doers in the place (assuming they don't all rush towards the sound of fighting).
Yeah, that makes tons of sense...
Anytime you would have killed the target, a coup de grace is just a quick way to get it done.
Now that being said, I have a Paladin who is a follower of a goddess of Death and Magic. She isn't your typical paladin. She doesn't belong to an order, and she looks more like a vagabond knight, who travels the world without apparent aim. She's rough spoken, promiscuous, and doesn't call herself a Paladin because she doesn't see a point in having a title that separates herself from others.
This character is amazingly protective of life. She prefers to take captives, and tries to convince sentient creatures that there is another, less destructive way. She has released captives when they were no longer threats, and moved them to do differently. All of which, however, is part of her, not necessarily part of being a Paladin.
Paladins have to fight evil, and they have to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Sometimes that requires them to be sneaky. Sometimes that requires them to be resourceful. Sometimes, that requires them to finish enemies, because that's what needs to be done.
Gah... Poor fella...? This is a wendigo right? Acting as bait so your party doesn't get eaten and gets a chance to subdue or kill the psychotic insane spirit that possesses and destroys all life against code? As far as I know paladins are no longer required to be lawful stupid. I'd check up on your god of choice's entry, but honestly dude it sounds like you were using basic tactics to me and would be in the clear for any god I can think of.
Screw the paladin code.
Pragmatism doesn't belong exclusively to Neutral, and unconventional tactics aren't intrinsically unlawful. There's plenty of tactics that I'd hit a paladin with a warning for - taking hostages; misrepresenting a surrender, especially to an enemy likely to honor it; unnecessary cruelty; excessive collateral damage, and many other things. There's nothing, however, about "announce presence, walk forward in a straight line, hit with masterwork longsword" that makes it an especially Lawful Good plan of action. Iomedae has Tactics as a subdomain. Torag has strategy in his portfolio. If anything, I think that they'd be a bit disappointed in a paladin who failed to protect the innocent because his plan wasn't sufficiently nuanced or out-of-the-box.
Honestly, if I was going to have the paladin talk to the sorcerer, I'd expect the talk to have far more to do with recklessness than with evil.
Also, people can maybe lay off the OP a little. It doesn't sound like he's being overly zealous in trying to punish the paladin, just sounding out what people think about the action in question. I think he gets it.
I don't want to give away too many details as this is from an adventure path but I'd like to get some insight from some other players/GMs to see if I am being a little too strict on the whole paladin code.
Basic scenario is that there is an encampent that has some hostages from a local town. The party consisting of a druid, barbarian, cleric, sorcerer, paladin and monk decide to rescue the hostages.
The plan is pretty straight forward, dimension door in with everyone being invisible, the proceed to distract the captors while the cleric retrieves the girls. Then if the captors attack the party, defend appropriately.
What happened was, Air Elemental Druid drops a distraction in the form of ball lightning but doesn't hit anyone, the Barbarian, Monk, Cleric and Paladin teleport in while invisible. Then the sorcerer drops a fireball killing 5 of the captors. The paladin and barbarian proceed to charge the remaining captors. Now the paladin does do a subdual shield slam against one of the barbarians so I'll give him that and he did ask the guy to drop his weapon.
Is this honorable combat? Obviously the paladin had no real choice in the matter of the fireball. The approach to the entire combat strikes me as more chaotic is all. I haven't taken away any powers but if the paladin doesn't try to bring some order to the process I am tempted to apply a penalty.
Thoughts?
Were the captives put at risk by this course of action any more than any particular other course of action? My take is no. As such, this appears to be for the highest possible Good. As such, no, it is not a violation of the Code.
Stealth does not mean dishonor.
|
|
The kidnappers, by their actions and implicit threats (to kill hostages if ransoms are not met) have forfeited a right to leniency until such time as they surrender. Should their tactics preclude any possibility of their being able to surrender prior to them being killed in a PC ambush (as that is the only option left to the PCs), then they reap what they sow.
Being good does not mean you are a pushover for evil.
That's still a player choice. They are making a conscious the choice to follow that god, that's the acceptance of the rules that come with it. Now, if a paladin player chooses something else, even an ideal, you shouldn't hold that one god's rules to that player, because they didn't ask for it.
A) Nothing in the Paladin section says they can follow a concept. You can houserule that if you want, but as far as I know, only Clerics can follow concepts.
B) If you do allow concepts via houseruling, then you and the player must come up with a code of conduct he must follow, and it should be restricting in a way that makes sense for his concept he's following (and that concept should be a concept appropriate to a Paladin). Anything else is just ignoring a major limitation on the class.
C) I never said he should be held to some other god's tenants. I said he has to follow the code of his god. I have a code for every god in my game that can have Paladins. And a Paladin has to choose a god.
PS : Please don't put words in my mouth. I can do the same to you if you wish. I assure you, they won't taste good, even with catsup.
That's still a player choice. They are making a conscious the choice to follow that god, that's the acceptance of the rules that come with it. Now, if a paladin player chooses something else, even an ideal, you shouldn't hold that one god's rules to that player, because they didn't ask for it.A) Nothing in the Paladin section says they can follow a concept. You can houserule that if you want, but as far as I know, only Clerics can follow concepts.
B) If you do allow concepts via houseruling, then you and the player must come up with a code of conduct he must follow, and it should be restricting in a way that makes sense for his concept he's following (and that concept should be a concept appropriate to a Paladin). Anything else is just ignoring a major limitation on the class.
C) I never said he should be held to some other god's tenants. I said he has to follow the code of his god. I have a code for every god in my game that can have Paladins. And a Paladin has to choose a god.
PS : Please don't put words in my mouth. I can do the same to you if you wish. I assure you, they won't taste good, even with catsup.
Nothing in Paladin says they have to follow anything, not gods, nor concepts. Not in any way that serves as a rule. Their description says they follow a god. The cleric says something similar, yet it has rules for following a concept as well as a god. Besides, several of the gods are a bit more loose than what you originally posted, in fact pretty much all of them are more loose than that.
The fact of the matter is there is no rule, merely a description (and even that's only hinting at it), that a paladin has to choose a god. That's a house rule, the RAW doesn't support it.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, even if you thought I was. A more accurate statement is this: I was covering all my bases.
Nothing in Paladin says they have to follow anything, not gods, nor concepts. Not in any way that serves as a rule. Their description says they follow a god. The cleric says something similar, yet it has rules for following a concept as well as a god. Besides, several of the gods are a bit more loose than what you originally posted, in fact pretty much all of them are more loose than that.
Divine Bond (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god. This bond can take one of two forms. Once the form is chosen, it cannot be changed.
Holy Champion (Su): At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.
First off, the rules are not, despite what people keep trying to make out, openly permissive. If class X says 'You may do Z' and class Y does not say 'You may do Z', then even if Class X and Class Y both have text that say 'You may do Q', Class Y doesn't get to do Z. That's not a houserule, it's flat out RAW. Monks and Rogues both get evasion, that doesn't mean Monk's also get Sneak Attack. Cleric's specifically call out that they may follow a concept, Paladin's do not. Ergo, they cannot.
However, even with that, at least two specific powers specify 'god'. So if a Paladin did somehow follow a concept, they'd lose out on Divine Bond (no god to create a bond with), and Holy Champion (no god for them to channel the power of).
The fact of the matter is there is no rule, merely a description (and even that's only hinting at it), that a paladin has to choose a god. That's a house rule, the RAW doesn't support it.
See quoted above.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, even if you thought I was. A more accurate statement is this: I was covering all my bases.
Accepted.
None of that explicitly states she needs a god. Ergo, they don't need one. You can forgo those powers (like a rogue can forgo their sneak attack dice), it's a matter of choice. They certainly don't need one with the crippling limitations like you mentioned earlier.
Beside, if they really wanted to fight with all of the god-based shenanigans, they would say something like "you and your GM should come up with a code of ethics that relates to your god" instead of making it an all-encompassing one, that may very well go against the tenets of a god. Or better: they will actually right them out