[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], Based on your expressed intent, there are some mixed messages included here. "It's not about how Paizo does it, it's about the one true appropriate way to define it by literary heritage". So, it's not that Paizo is wrong, but they're also not right? I'm legitimately curious here, where are you you trying to plant your flag, and for what?
I'm saying that there is a literary (and not purely literary) archetype, and that is where the paladin comes from.
A D&D or PF class may or may not be called a paladin, and may or may not correspond to that archetype. That's an issue of game design and, probably more importantly, game marketing. As I said, I don't know what will make a game play well for the majority of the PF2 market. What I am also saying, though, is that a version of the "paladin" that ranks the tenets of the code - thereby, for instance, expressing the worry that honour and goodness might come into conflict - is departing from the archetype.
That departure may be popular or unpopular, and may make for better gameplay or worse gameplay at someone's table. I'm offering an analysis of it, not saying whether or not it's a good thing.
as, king, he makes the rules, so it's not like he has to really concern himself with the law.
This isn't an accurate account of mediaeval kingship in general, certainly not of the idealised conception of it that JRRT is engaging with. I haven't got my copy of LotR in front of me, but I found
a copy of the passage online:
"Beregond, by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord or Captain. For these things, of old, death was the penalty. Now therefore I shall pronounce your doom."
"All penalty is remitted for your valour in battle, and still more because all that you did was for the love of the Lord Faramir. Nonetheless you must leave the Guard of the Citadel, and you must go forth from the city of Minas Tirith..."
"So it must be, for you are appointed to the White Company, the Guard of Faramir, Prince of Ithilien, and you shall be its captain and dwell in Emyn Arnen in honour and peace, and in the service of him for whom you risked all, to save him from death."
Putting it in more sociological terms (and using Weber's sociology of law and governmental authority - not everyone likes it, but I do), Aragorn here is drawing on his charismatic authority to shape the understanding and application of traditional law. He doesn't claim to be dispensing with the law - rather, he applies it: he pronounces judgement, remitting the death penalty, imposing exile instead but the exile taking the form of an honourable appointment that recognises the valour that underpins the remittance. The application upholds all that is valuable in the traditional law: valour; loyalty to the king and the stewards; loyalty to the city of Minas Tirith. It is not an act of law-making in any self-conscious sense.
Another example, I think less nuanced but from a D&D source, is the way the character of Sturm Brightblade in the DL Chronicles reveals the true meaning of the Oath that "My Honour is My Life".
I may be way off base, but I suspect that most GMs wouldn't immediately allow one of their PCs to include "rightful king" in their backstory without some significant cautionary discussion beforehand.
But a paladin doesn't need to be a lawmaker to see the good in the law and voice it. Of course - which relates directly to the 3 ways I identified to approach a game with a paladin in it - the GM can always push back. So to pick up again on [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION]'s example of the orphan who inadvertently enters the forbidden palace courtyard: if the player of the paladin, speaking in character to the decision-maker, suggests as an application of the law that s/he take the orphan into service, thus rendering the orphan not a forbidden person, the GM can have the queen (or whomever is making the decision) refuse and try to insist on execution. But that would be contrary to approach (1) - which, rather, would have the queen agree with the paladin and recognise the wisdom of his/her solution. It would fit with approach (3) only if the player of the paladin fails to succeed in the appropriate resolution framework; in which case, it would be part of the process, perhaps, of discovering that the paladin's ideals are, indeed, futile. Under approach (2) the GM might just decide that the queen says no, and then the player of the paladin has to decide to break the law and disregard a legitimate command in order to save an innocent life. This seems to be what Paizo has in mind in building a hierarchy into the code.
As it relates to the creation of the dilemma. The goal is not to cause a character to fall, but force the player to evaluate what the character's values really are and take responsibility for choices and/or sacrifices that they make. It's not really even about the outcome, it's about making space for character-defining choices.
But a paladin's values are already clear. We know what they are:
truth,
honour/I], virtue, steadfastness, courtesy, humility, courage, generosity are some of the most obvious ones.
The idea that we have to evaluate which of these the character really adheres to already takes, as a premise, that you can't adhere to them all at once: which is to say already takes as a premise that the paladin is foolish, naive, utopian, etc, in believing as s/he does.
