My position is that a paladin class defined as allowing any alignment is not inclusive of a paladin archetype that requires LG alignment...
Okay. I agree.
That said, it's a terrible place to write the rules from unless your goal is to make non-LG Paladins more difficult to houserule into games.* It is far better to go from the other direction, create rules that support Inclusive Alignment Paladins and then allow the individual DMs to toggle the Alignment switches on their end.**
Thus if a DM wants only LG Paladins, they simply state "Only LG Paladins in this game".
Done, the majority on both sides
should now be satisfied.
* Unless the class is written rather generically such that the only area Alignment truly comes into play is in the prerequisites and the Fall From 'Grace' mechanics, in which case it will be an easy toggle then as well.
** This is and has been my core position on Paladins vis-a-vis Alignments and this thread. The other discussions were side digressions.
..and that you are mistaken in thinking that this solution should satisfy everyone.
That's not my position.
As I said, some people will be upset no matter how this falls out.
Your position, from your arguments, is (LG Paladin) is a subset of (Paladins of any alignment).
That is included in my position yes.
I am pointing out that, to the people who favor alignment restrictions, (Paladins must be LG and only LG) is NOT a subset of (Paladins of any alignment).
Which has nothing to do with what makes for a better rules set. You are confusing "core" rules with your home game.
However if your home game requires that core rules be used without deviation... then yeah, I'm pretty sure your group will have a lot to suck up and get over if you wish to play on.
To look at this another way here's an analogy:
I'm saying 3 is a number included in the set of numbers from 1 to 9. Thus Inclusive Numbers Rules allows me to more easily run games in which 4, 5, 6, and 7 can come into play.
You are saying 3 is the only important number (and thus imply the rules should only support play for 3).
And every time any one tries to explain that this position is terrible from a rules standpoint your side shouts "3 is the only important number!" as though that has any relevance.
Paladins CAN be LG != Paladins MUST be LG.
Exactly.
However, 'Paladins Can be LG' includes the subset: 'Paladins MUST BE LG'.
I'd Venn diagram this thing but I'm lazy.