Imaro
Legend
I'm going to couple these two together if you don't mind. First, I want to just mention that (i) such an oath (as outlined above) would be but one specified moral directive amongst others and (ii) there would be an overarching faith that binds the general dogma (eg punish the wicked, protect the meek, et al). Together, they would form a coherent whole. All would be expected to be observed but only the oaths (which would be specific aspects that define the dogma) would have the feedback system attached.
Well I still think there would be holes and gray areas (just like with alignment) unless we get codes of a ridiculous level of detail... and then who ultimately would decide those blurry areas of the code, player or DM??
I primarily want to address the bolded bits. Making qualitative value judgements is, of course, an inescapable part of being human. Where this interfaces with the classical D&D alignment system and how it manifests in play is my primary issue.
Consider what you have outlined above. A Paladin ruminating upon a present conflict and considering it hopeless and, therefore, any sacrifice by himself as in vain and/or senseless (when considering the good he could potentially produce elsewhere were he not tied up with this "lost cause"). Then we have a Paladin reviewing a situation and applying cost-benefit analysis to determine what is the most expedient means (rather than what is the most idealistically rigorous or robust) to achieve his sought end. Let us say you and I are pals in real life and you are at my table. Lets say that at the edges of the general faith, and the specificity of the oaths, there are corner cases (such as the one you have outlined) that require addressing the situation from a perspective of moral idealism or utilitarianism. Suddenly, I'm in a conversation with my buddy Imaro (whom I really just want to be playing D&D with) about philosophy. We're invoking Mill and Kant and examining if a Paladin should be making qualitative value judgements from a perspective of maximizing utility and/or that moral judgements stem from the application of reason. I don't want to be doing this. Certainly not at the table and I don't really want to be doing it later. At least not as a means to the end of determining if these edge-case actions that may skirt the periphery of his oaths and overarching dogma are in-line with the sui generis Paladin code.
I don't think we would agree anyway and even if we got to the point of "agree to disagree and live with my decision as final arbiter", I don't think either of us would be happy (at least that is my experience).
So are you advocating that as the player of the paladin that I should create my own code, decide my own gray areas, etc.? If so why am I not just playing a pious fighter with some type of religious background? I guess my question boils down to at the point where I can act however I want because I am defining my own code and gray areas and behavior... what makes a paladin a paladin, since anybody can choose to define and follow a code?
I think one of the issues that keeps coming up here is the player who is playing in Pawn Stance amongst a table consensus that expects a "fiction first", (relatively) tightly focused thematic game from Actor Stance (perhaps with a smattering of Director and Author Stance). If a player continuously makes qualitative value judgements based on "stuff I personally want or don't want to happen to me the player" that are out of line with "stuff that is thematically appropriate or inappropriate for Bob the Paladin", while the rest of the table expects (and follows themselves) the inverse, you're going to have problems no matter if you use carrots or sticks or a combination of the two. Alternatively, if you take the same player (who keeps playing in Pawn Stance despite the table consensus to not do so) and place him in a situation where his interests as a player match up with the thematics of the character build and progression mechanics (the positive feedback system), then the rest of the players at the table (GM included) won't notice the Pawn Stance play (because the two are married).
It sounds to me like you are saying this style of paladin can only operate "correctly" with players and groups who have a certain playstyle and (narrow??) assumptions... is that a good thing?
the other point is that there is no incentive for the player not to pick a paladin since he is deciding everything about his code... i think you are making the mistake of assuming that the player will be acting out of the character of a paladin all the time, but I was clear that this was not the situation I was speaking to. i am speaking of a player who for the most part plays the paladin as a paladin but every so often, when it is expedient or optimal, does something no paladin would do but suffers no repercussions for it. that is the player I am talking about.