| Stubbazubba |
I am cautiously optimistic about the tier-ing of the Code, but in reading over it I think there is what lawyers call "an elephant hiding in a mouse hole" where the real substantive issue is hiding in a seemingly simple word: innocent.
It comes up a lot in the class description but is never defined, and it becomes very important in interpreting the Code. The second tenet talks about the protection of "innocents," and the example of the second tenet trumping the third (and, implicitly, the fourth) tenet relies on the language of "innocent lawbreakers." So there must be a difference between "innocence" for Paladin purposes and "breaking the law" for legal purposes.
My best guess is that "innocence" is defined by your deity, informed by the Edicts/Anathema, but that seems either under- or over-inclusive of what the Paladin archetype is usually about. If an "innocent" is someone fulfilling a deity's Edicts, that probably doesn't define too many random villagers or refugees that are the classic weak and vulnerable types that Paladins stereotypically defend. If it is merely someone who does not commit Anathema, that would include all kinds of people who have committed real crimes against legitimate authority (thus rendering the fourth tenet pretty toothless).
It's telling that the example chosen to demonstrate how the tenets' relative position works assumes that everyone agrees what behavior an "innocent lawbreaker" has engaged in; a heroic rebellion against a tyrant? A heretic in an oppressive theocracy? A Robin Hood? A member of a persecuted minority whose very existence is illegal? Some of those may or may not be "innocent" based on a deity's philosophy or the Paladin's Code itself. I am only guessing at where to even look to find the standard (deities on 288-289), and then guessing again at what the standard of each deity might be. Maybe the ambiguity here is intentional, though that way lies all the problems that the new tiered tenets was supposed to solve.
The point is that even without getting particularly modern about what counts as "legitimate authority" (the Dragonslayer/Fiendsbane/Shining Oaths imply that rule = legitimacy, which is a bit opposed to today's "supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses" but is much easier to put into practice), the old alignment debates that made you swear off Paladin in the first place are still here, they're just hidden in defining "innocent" out of nothing to see if the 2nd tenet ever applies. "Innocent" needs to either be defined or replaced, and that is going to require either a commitment to some moral norms for all Paladins, or a commitment to defining "innocence" for each potential deity.
The same could probably be said for "lawful authority of the legitimate ruler" and "murder," as well, though to a slightly lesser degree.
Also, the alignments the deities allow should really be on the Deities pages on 288-289 so that Paladins can just look at one reference to know all they need to know about their deity instead of two.
Thanks!