I find it interesting that you say that the different Law/Neutral/Chaos would get a different amount of "strikes" Psi. I'd say that they'd have the same amount of strikes vs their particular codes.
I'd certainly agree with this. If nothing else, it wouldn't be fair to hold one alignment to a higher standard than another, especially given that the loss associated with falling from grace is so significant.
For example if a CE Paladin willfully does good acts...
Actually, I disagree here. For the Evil variants, I would suggest that they shouldn't be required to refrain from doing good, as such, but rather they should be required to actively do evil. And if a character is not evil enough (the Diet Coke of evil), then they should fall.
I'll have to look at those books a bit more closely and mold them with some of the paladin, anti-paladin, and paladin variant codes from the UA. I also like the stuff posted about Palladium and will have to take some of that into account.
At one point, I was looking at the possbilities of removing alignment from the game, but retaining the Paladin code. One of the things I considered would be that Paladins would be bound by a code made up of 4-8 specific, easily-stated oaths. (I actually lifted the code from the "Knights of the Old Code" from "Dragonheart".)
If the Paladin were to fall short of one of these strictures, the infraction would be listed as either a minor or major infraction. Of course, a major infraction would result in an immediate fall, after which the Paladin should seek an
atonement/ spell, and probably a quest to recover his powers.
However, for minor infractions, this would simply be recorded, and the Paladin continues as before. But if the Paladin should record a minor infraction on each of his strictures then, again, the Paladin would fall, and require
atonement and a quest.
One further detail: the Paladin should not be able to use
atonement to clear his record of minor infractions until such time as he has actually fallen. The reason for this is two-fold: firstly, it allows for the portrayal of a flawed Paladin (because once he's fallen short once on his oath of chastity, he might as well continue), but secondly because it just makes it all that little bit too easy - they can claim
atonement when it's convenient and easy, rather than having to deal with the consequences of his character flaws.
But I never quite got around to implementing such a thing - truth is, nobody in my current group is particularly interested in playing a Paladin anyway.