Paladin behavior question

[Man in the Funny Hat]

But on the other hand, you seem to make the assumption that investigating philosophical concerns in game is not a part of fantasy play, and that the purpose of alignment is to handwave such concerns away so that the players can get on with whatever the real focus of play is. And I kind of agree with you if what you mean is that clear alignment answers should stop OOC debates between the players, but what I think alignment should never do is take focus away from IC game debate, exploration, and examination of moral philosophy.

We are actually in agreement. The aim is not to prevent it from being a subject of interest at all, merely to ensure that game mechanics to stay out of the way. If you want your game to actually be like Elric with forces of Law versus forces of Chaos then alignment rules should END debates between players or with DM's about what IS "lawful" - but the gameplay can be ALL ABOUT lawful and chaotic actions by PC's, NPC's and monsters. On the other hand if your game is just a gang of generic adventurers looting mostly forgotten tombs for profit then addition of a LG paladin to the PC rolster should not need to throw the game into a tailspin because: Alignment.

Mind you, I think that very few games actually ARE centered around exploration of moral and ethical positions of the characters.

And finally, while I agree that greater clarity is desirable, and that simple to use lists are also desirable, I think it is also important to consider that I think more than anything it has been seemingly 'simple' lists provided for classes like Paladin, Ranger, and Cavalier that has led to the endless debates, table conflict, and frustration.

If anything I would believe that it's the absence of such lists in a way. That's because issues with alignment-restricted characters - paladins very much in particular - are the result of "predatory" DMing; "Gotcha!" DMing. Games where whether the DM has really put thought into alignment definitions or not, they use alignment as a hammer to beat over the heads of players and PC's. They wait until the character does something that... bothers them in some fashion, and then brings down the 16-ton weight of alignment enforcement taking the player by complete surprise - and sparking an argument. Players don't have their characters intentionally perform actions that they know to be "violations" without very well-considered intent. They just don't. They don't BECAUSE they don't want their PC's bashed with an alignment hammer. But DM's use alignment to gleefully bait traps and then act as if alignment is to blame when players complain about the consequences of their characters actions. If players knew that the DM would threaten or outright summarilly revoke their characters class or whatever because of what they're doing, they wouldn't do it. And there's the rub - THEY DON'T KNOW NOT TO DO IT. The DM waits to spring the FULL interpretation of allowed alignment actions until the DM has declared that the action CANNOT be changed and the player/PC must suffer the consequences.

A simple list of commonly encountered alignment traps and their ALLOWED responses for paladins, rangers, druids, etc. would make those alignment traps all but moot. They'd stop working because players would know the correct responses going in and it would never become an issue. Can the paladin kill orc babies, for example (always a classic alignment trap)? Doesn't matter if the answer is yes or no - if the player has that list of allowed actions/responses to consult then the issue is moot - unless for GENUINE roleplaying reasons the player has the character act differently. Players still get to make the decisions for what their characters will do, but are not simply not caught by surprise when what they THOUGHT was a viable, righteous, or safe choice is instead found to be a horrific moral infraction.