pkt77242
Explorer
I'm only willing to play conventional paladins in gameworlds with sufficient black and white morality that there's always a third option in moral dilemmas. Getting a straight answer out of DMs on this topic has proved to be like pulling teeth though (metaphorically speaking).
I've seen far too many supposed LG paladins played as fascist bullyboys or deluded don quixotes, both deliberately and accidentally.
Admittedly I'm inflexible on the issue, but I liked old arthurian tales and feel nostalgic about unrealistic stories about shiny virtuous knights. If I'm playing a paladin I don't want gritty reality, and I want good to triumph, and be seen to triumph, in the end even if the paladin doesn't live to see it.
I have no problem with non-LG paladins, as they give me and other players options. In some of the above cases they allow other players options better suited to what they actually want to play if they are willing to admit it.
I tend to dislike unannounced parody games which mock particular concepts I might actually like. If they are preannounced I can bow out gracefully beforehand.
I always liked to give my Paladin a flaw. One of my favorites was a LG Paladin who was a womanizer. He followed the law, and even had a code about womanizing (no married women, no evil women, etc) but every time the party stopped at an inn he would be off chasing after a barmaid and a few times kicked off an adventurer by chasing after the wrong women (a local lords daughter, and once an evil female mage, that he didn't know was evil at the time). I think giving them a "flaw" makes them more real.