By your first logic, then anything that D&D stamps as a Paladin is a D&D Paladin, that works somewhat but kind of defeats the purpose of the entire thread.
The purpose of this thread is to ask if people are unhappy about non-LG Paladins, so no, it doesn't in any way "defeat" that. I'm not saying they can't be unhappy. We're discussing what defines Paladins in D&D.
Divine Warrior seems to be appropriate to cater to both Good and Evil Warriors/gods. Even still thru out all editions and different games that have Paladins, they have been portrayed as a Hero to the people, a Holy Warrior against Evil, and Protector of the innocent. On point though, the only exception to them being non LG was 4e (besides countless supplements with small changes that can be considered either pandering or marketing), which despite individual opinions was a movement to turn them from a specialist class into just a more defensive character with holy charged abilities, AKA the Paladin from WoW.
No, you are completely wrong here, Xodis, and re-writing D&D's history really severely.
Every edition has had rules for non-LG Paladins. No exceptions.
4E was merely the first to put them
in the PHB, but
every edition has had TSR or WotC-printed rules for non-LG Paladins of some kind, whether it's the Anti-Paladin, or merely CG or NG Paladins, or Paladins for all alignments with different names, or whatever.
As for "AKA the Paladin from WoW." oh my god, really? I take it you've never played WoW, right? Or any Warcraft game? The Warcraft Paladins are solidly LG, as a group, and follow a strict code. So please explain, why you call 4E's Paladin, who is not necessarily LG, nor follows a strict LG code, "AKA the Paladin from WoW"?