I know, but why can't it be the default option anyway? I'm not saying that you then have to have distant gods. Far from it. I'm saying that your group is then free to decide how it wants to portray its gods (and hence its divine characters), and doesn't have to cross out a line in the PHB to do it.
And if I think that those powers which scream lawful good to you also fit my idea for a chaotic good or lawful neutral character, what's the harm in me picking the class as written?
Is it less evil to kill something quickly and painlessly, or to stab it repeatedly with a big bit of sharp metal until it dies?
If a paladin can be good and kill things, I see no reason why an assassin can't be good too. Do you really have to kill things while people are watching to be considered good?
For me it is a big flavor thing with paladins I have been playing since 1E and paladins scream lawful good to me. To me it is very much a part of what makes DnD well DnD. I would like to see rules for holy warriors of different alignments in the players handbook.
If they don't put in the alignment restriction it will be something I house rule in. already house rule all clerics must match their god's alignment.
If they make holy warriors of different alignments they have better chance of pleasing everybody those who want paladins to be lawful good like they always have and yet give options for those who don''t want the restrictions.
There is a huge difference between the way a paladin kills something and an assassin does. A paladin confronts his enemy openly and engages in honorable combat taking the chance of losing his life in the process. An assassin kills by trying to not give the enemy a chance to fight back. He has no issue with poisoning a bottle of wine or slicing someone throat as they sleep. Those are not good acts ever.
I don't know how you run your games but in mine there is a difference between defending your self and murder. Killing an unarmed person who is not trying to kill you is considered murder.