What are the strictest interpretations of a paladin's code?

[Dross]

You might be interested in referring to the The Oath of Peace of the Bloodguard in Stephen Donladson's novels...

"Do not hurt where holding is enough; Do not wound where hurting is
enough; Do not maim where wounding is enough; Do not kill where
maiming is enough; the greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill"

Nitpick,
The Lords and the Warmark took the Oath of Peace (or maybe the people of the land, which the Bloodguard or Haurachi (sp?) were not), the Bloodguard never did. They simply did not go against it because of their loyalty to the Lords. (Nitpick off).

But you are right in that this is a good way to play the pally.

 

[hamishspence]

More FCII insights

FC II mentions that a person raised in an evil culture, with a mildly evil worldview, is not condemned until they commit their first evil act.

The reason (most) poisons are considered evil to use has little to do with honor and more to do with unnecessary suffering: ability damage is very, very, very painful. Box jelly stings, for example, do D4 DEX damage (Stormwrack)

Paralyse/sleep poisons are NOT evil to use. Whether they are honorable to use depends on the DM. Some say that "Stealth" paladins are OK: like the Slayer of Domiel prestige class. Others demand the paladin be up front, no sneaking. There is however precedent for sneaky paladins in the novels.