I keep posting the same questions because you continue to ignore or dismiss them rather than answering them.
First, to the statement I have emphasized - you steadfastly refer to aspects not being primarily in the GM's control, as having some ownership by the character. But you also continue to indicate that the decisions are entirely the player's. Which is it? Do these aspects of the game belong entirely, 100%, to the player, as the complete inability for the Paladin's guiding ideal/deity/whatever to ever disagree with his decisions (unless the player decides that the Paladin has made a decision inconsistent with that of his guide, whoever or whatever that may be)? Or is control shared in some way between player and GM, as your statement above would indicate? If the latter, where does the player's control end and the GM's control start?
Now, maybe these constant requests for "context" really say "well, it depends on the specific character, the link with the entity, the campaign specifics, the other players, etc. etc. If it's a question of "I use my best judgment to assess when the player's control ends in the context of all other aspects of the game", then congratulations - that's exactly what I do. I don't decide that sparing a defeated enemy (mercy and belief in redemption) or slaying a fallen foe (you will face justice for your crimes) is the One True Path of LG, so the Paladin sets the moral choice (for that Paladin - not necessarily for the world as a whole). When the Paladin decides whether or not to sacrifice a 2 month old baby on the Altar of Orcus to infiltrate their cult, I don't give him so much leeway.
To the "depends on the campaign" aspect, you continually refer to a game with multiple worshippers of the Raven Queen. Presumably, each has a stake in the RQ. How do we resolve matters if one decides the right moral judgment in her service is to exercise mercy (spare the prisoner) and the other decides the morally correct act is to execute the prisoner? Which one is TRULY following the moral guidance of the Raven Queen and which has erred? They cannot both be right. The Cleric will cast a Commune spell to ask the Raven Queen specifically which decision is morally correct to get the benefit of her 25+INT and WIS absolute knowledge of the appropriate moral decision.
To the last, I suggested a mentor as a contrast to a deity or ideal. The Paladin strives to live up to the ideal or a deity, and you are indicating that the player makes the decisions on that ideal and can never be judged to have deviated from it by anyone but that player. You also seem fine with the Prince banishing the cleric (presumably because the Cleric did not create the Prince nor link to him in his own background). So I am trying to determine just how far the player can go in linking various campaign fixtures to his own background to take control of them.
I chose familiar to contrast with mentor because the familiar is a game mechanic provided to certain classes where the mentor is not. What makes me think some things are treated differently? Your inconsistent comments. For example, when I asked if the player had similar control over the character's parent or his home town, such that their removal could not occur without his consent, you indicated they would not be removed off-stage, implying that they could be forfeit due to on-stage game activity. However, the Paladin could not fall due to his decisions on-stage, not just off-stage, so you clearly treat the deity/ideal differently than the parent/home town, at least as your written comments would indicate. I am trying to get a more accurate sense of where you draw the line, which elements the player has control over, how absolute that control is, and perhaps also how many elements he may lay claim to in order to better frame this discussion.
I am not going to buy or download other game systems and/or invest the time to carefully read and consider their guidance. What other game systems do is not the issue here, at least to me. In any case, even your own comments note that " the "relationship" mechanics and guidelines from Burning Wheel as a reasonable starting point", so that would not answer the question of your end point after starting from that system.
If the Paladin has not lived up to the ideal based on his own moral judgment, then it follows that the Paladin is not as devoted to that ideal as you suggest. I can claim to be entirely devoted to the Catholic church, to select a real world example. However, if I am in favour of birth control and female priests, then I am clearly not so devoted as one might originally have believed, as I do not support certain tenets of the faith. If my interpretations differ enough, then perhaps I will discover I am actually devoted to the ideals of a different faith, one which incorporates tenets of the Catholic church to which I am, in fact, devoted but which does not incorporate those tenets with which I strongly disagree. I may also discover that I am more fervent in some aspect than the tenets of the church actually require (perhaps believing a strict tithing of 10% of my earnings is appropriate, where the church does not enforce this).
This does not mean that I have failed to live up to my ideals, nor that either Church has failed to live up to its ideals. It means that they are not the same.
Now, in my analogy, we cannot determine which church is truly correct - that is, which lives up to the ideals of the divine being both venerate. In a D&D context, however, we lack that one supreme all-wise and all-knowing being. Instead, we have an array of powerful, wise beings, all devoted to different ideals.
A big if. You assume this. I don't believe the D&D cosmology does.
In a polytheistic setting such as the D&D world, this again does not follow. Arthur and Aragorn's world is not one with numerous competing otherworldly powers. If we import Arthurian precepts, then all wizardry, sorcery, etc. is provided through the devil, which does not leave a lot of scope for working with sorcerers and wizards. Merlin's fit is uncomfortable at best, as he is by many legends considered the child of the devil himself, or of a demon.
The only game I am aware of which follows the Arthurian milieu is Pendragon, which had mechanics for PC's living up to their ideals - and their failure was quite possible, if not likely, in the course of the game. That further removes control of the character's adherence to his ideals from the control of the player, perhaps in a manner more in keeping with [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]'s desire for a mechanic to be invoked rather than a GN judgment call, although, again, I expect GM judgment is needed to assess when the mechanic is invoked, and possibly some of its specifics, such as how difficult the check might be.
The fallacy as I see it is set out above, in asserting there is One True Philosophy in the D&D milieu the Paladin exists in. If we have a party where the Paladin strives to uphold an ideal of LG, where a cleric in the same party strives to uphold the tenets of a CG deity, both are in the service of an entity which guides their moral decisions. Those entities view the world, morality and ethics very differently. To implement your premise, they both must be correct and infallible, while differing considerably on their assessment of what is correct.
If you and I each want to play a paladin "devoted to a being of infallible moral judgement", and we must both have the power to determine what that judgment is, as we must both be assumed to play our paladin in accordance with this "infallible moral judgement" by absolute adherence to our codes, what happens when our two paladins make different moral choices (eg. I wish to execute the prisoner; you wish to spare him)? By your rules, we have both made the infallibly correct moral judgment, but we have made the opposite choice.
I think the above is a pretty solid obstacle to implementing your approach. As I recall the article in question, and it has been several years since I read it (many since I bought it from a long-defunct FLGS), it very much worked on a theory of moral relativism, much like the edition which described each alignment from the perspective of one so aligned as "the best alignment because". Applying that precept, we would clearly have to abandon the Paladin as traditionally viewed in D&D, as it would not require adherence to any specific alignment - one could be devoted to the ideals of, say, a culture which sacrifices virgins to its deities and transfers power by combat to the death, or assassination.
So you can look across the table at the so-called devoted LG Paladin who is about to rip the throat of a newborn child out with his teeth because his infiltration of the Cult of Orcus depends on it, and besides some other cultist will do it anyway if he refuses, and say "hey, whatever you choose, the Raven Queen , in her Absolute Lawful Goodness, supports you 100%"? That may be the game you want to play. It's not my vision of Aragorn, Arthur or D&D Paladinhood, so it's not my game.
So is the issue only one of mechanics, rather than one of alignment in general? Merely change the Paladin to "follows a moral code all his own from which he derives his powers" and let their code include or exclude any action the player wishes. But don't claim it to be Good or Lawful unless the precepts of Law and Good are somehow to be included in that code.
So let's discuss mechanical weakening (which I take to include removal of the character from the game, requiring the layer create a new character to replace him, as the player decides whether the character will be returned, and he cannot be banished from the game location without violation of "fail forward"). Clearly, we cannot remove the Paladin or Cleric's class features permanently, then, and you have indicated we cannot replace them with other features since that is not what the player wished to play. Can they be denied for a period of time? For example, removal of their holy symbols, a broad anti-magic zone, etc., which deny any character with magic a class feature? Is the death of the Paladin's warhorse, or the wizard's familiar, replaceable with time and/or money, acceptable at any time? What about the removal of gear or denial of wealth? Assumption of a certain measure of gear/wealth by level is a part of the game mechanics at this point (really added by 3e, when the power of the classes was to be moved parity, if not implemented perfectly), so is denying that wealth of limits? An archer can be denied his bow, I believe we established - for how long? Can that also be the approximate time it takes a Paladin to atone in some and regain his class abilities? What about just making them ineffective? A high DR creature can be very frustrating to characters lacking the ability to bypass it, and spell resistance or immunities can be equally frustrating to characters reliant on magic.
Again, I don't believe the line is anywhere near as clear as your comments imply. Rather, I suspect it is an area where we balance competing interests within the game.
So which of the two was right? They had different priorities, so one of them must have made the right call that extraction of the information was more important than the just punishment of the character), and the other must have made the wrong one. Yet it does not seem their moral philosophies really came into conflict, as Derrick simply accepted the result (with some wailing and gnashing of teeth), and did not refuse to turn his back on the infallible moral judgment that the crimes of the prisoner must be punished.
I don't see any choice made which would be inappropriate of a Paladin. I see lots of other choices they could have made without participating in an evil act. Had Derrick refused to honour the promise given by his teammate, I suppose that could arguably be a non-lawful act (is he beholden to uphold the promises of that character) or a lawful one (leaving the decision to the Baron whose role includes meting out justice), and one could assert the actual Paladin carried out a chaotic act in making this promise knowing his leader would not have agreed (and even trying to keep him out of the picture while the deal was being made), as well as usurping the Baron's authority, but he was pursuing the greater good, so again I'm seeing a judgment call.
This seems a passive-aggressive effort to suggest that those who favour alignment are "roll-players rather than role players". I note that you greatly object to any approach which causes mechanically weaker characters. I am also uncertain why, if the "main aim" is not "to get bigger numbers on the character sheet", having smaller numbers is a significant negative occurrence. I believe your concern is less about the absolute numbers than the relative ability of each character to succeed in efforts to influence the narrative, at least in their own areas of expertise (Derrick's ability to influence the narrative in the excerpt you provided seemed pretty small compared to the socially skilled characters).
I am uncertain how growth in those numbers "ramps up the fictional stakes". If you have +5 to achieve a DC 15 roll, or +35 to achieve a DC 45 roll, the stakes are not changed, nor is the likelihood of success or failure. I can envision very good games where the abilities of the characters change very slowly, or not at all. However, we have largely come to view growth (higher levels, bigger bonuses, etc.) to indicate success in the game, despite the fact that our opponents and challenges typically grow at exactly the same pace, as they must to maintain the challenge. Some systems se much less focus on combat abilities increasing over time.
