ThePhantomSquee
... well, it's very difficult to play a paladin in 3.5/PF the old way without being straitjacketed into Lawful Stupid.
Paladins, when they first came out, could be "lawful stupid" in a sense since they were one of the most powerful classes in the game. They were a fighter with special abilities. So, when balance in games weren't an issue, Paladins were restrained as to why they had all that power. And I do agree that "Lawful Stupid" is just about the worst thing to ever happen in D&D. Anything where alignment dictates role-playing is a failure...
I give Paladins leeway on a lot of choices. Humans aren't perfect avatars of goodness or law. They struggle and fight and as long as that struggle is present, I don't take away powers, but do remind him that his god isn't pleased with him. Makes for some good stressful storylines.
ThePhantomSquee
There's also the issue of what, exactly, constitutes a "dishonorable" act. A strict interpretation of that could argue that using magic against an enemy fighter is dishonorable, because you're doing something they're incapable of; or that feinting or making attacks of opportunity are cheating. It's a bit like the "paladins can't lie" fallacy--if the BBEG asks your paladin, plainly and honestly, what your plan to defeat him is, does the paladin fall for lying to him?
In a similar vein would be how you interpret what, exactly, a sneak attack is. If you're interpreting it as dirty fighting moves like throwing sand into your enemy's eyes or the like, I can see why you wouldn't want a paladin doing that. On the other hand, if you see sneak attacks as striking at vital areas, I don't see what the problem is. Ruling that a paladin can only aim for an opponent's arteries if he's not getting a bonus for it seems rather silly to me.
It's not the act of attacking a vulnerable area, but the act of not attacking fairly in a straight fight. If a Paladin merely gets a sneak attack due to flanking, I'd let it slide, but a sneak attack through stealth... ehhhhhhh. But I'm prone to agree on many points.
Byakko Yasutsuki
I always figured what tactics a paladin might use depended entirely on the deity. Sure a Pally of Iomede might shy away from the stealthier methods but are you telling me a paladin of Asmodeus wouldn't use tactically advantageous backstabbing with a poison dagger?
I'm telling you that a Paladin of Asmodeus is a Blackguard, not a Paladin. xD And Blackguards or Anti-Paladins, even when first printed in Dragon, always had Sneak Attack and poisons. I guess the term Paladins have gotten broader and encompasses any "Holy" warrior.
Anyway, this isn't my game and I have no right to say: YOU'RE HAVING FUN WRONG!!!1! Have fun. I just wanted to bring my opinion in. Also, I hope you get some good role-playing in as this character. A Pally-rogue sounds off to me, but a redeemed rogue who turned pally and is trying to forsake his old ways. That's sounds interesting, but I understand you were looking at the game from a much more crunch perspective rather than the fluff. I personally prefer fluff.