Manbearcat
Legend
This, to me, comes down to interpretation in play. When presented with a hard choice, my view is that the character does not have clear guidance on how to proceed. The fact is that had choices have no easy, right answers. Given that, I consider it inappropriate to impose negative consequences to any choice made. The Paladin should not fall because he was forced to make a hard choice, and rank his priorities. He should fall when he fails to make an obvious choice, even where that choice may be disadvantageous. But the campaign ground rules should be discussed at the table, no different from a ruling on mechanics. If Orcs in our game are irredeemably evil and fair game for slaughter by the forces of Good, this should be made known to everyone, and they should get reminded when the player forgets what their character would clearly know. If, on the other hand, they are sentient beings capable of moral choice, then the players should know/be reminded of that as well, and treat Orc prisoners no different than human prisoners. To me, the problem is much less "alignment as a concept" than it is an adversarial, "gotcha!" style of play where the GM considers it his job not to set interesting challenges for the Paladin (since he is the example we keep coming back to) but to trick him, or place him in untenable situations, driving him to fail.
If all that matters to the Paladin's Code is "don't be a bufoon and act grossly out of orthodox", then I'm left wondering what the point is. Its trivial to stay within that framework and, as ever, I'm completely mentally undone by the notion that someone would want to play a Paladin without the thematic trappings. If those trappings aren't central to play for the person playing, why aren't they just playing an alignment-neutral Fighter? In 1e, a UA Fighter is pretty much the equal of a Paladin and a 2e (especially C & T) Fighter is comprehensively a beast. They're both terrible in 3.x (and easily multi-classed out of) so it doesn't really matter. In 4e, the two characters are extremely distinct but there is no girding alignment.
I don't think we disagree too terribly much (except perhaps for what it means for roleplaying to be "hard" and/or its importants to functional D&D play). However, I just have found that the D&D alignment system is the least useful (and prone to potential detriment or obstruction) of all tools I've found in RPGs to explore thematic premise and challenge an ethos system (such that it must make hard choices or prioritize [sometimes competing] ideals).
Hang on. I think I have a moment of pithy clarity:
"Less, with specificity, is more. More, with generalities, is less."