Beyond alignment restrictions, I'm also quite against how 2e and previous edition Paladins were more powerful and "awesome" than other classes. It's probably how Paladins became lawful stupid in those editions, as they were appealing to players who wanted more for their power than other things. 3e and 4e did a good job of having Paladins roughly balanced with everything else.
To this, I agree. People should not play paladin's as a way to break the game because their stupid power levels. People should want to play paladin's because the idea of upholding some kind of code and working for some greater(be it holy or unholy or neutral) cause appeals to them.
I think it should be clear that in a straight up fight between the Paladin and a Fighter, the Fighter should win most of the time.
To this however, I disagree, for several reasons.
I feel that on the whole, Paladins are divine fighters, their faith empowers them where fighter training would have otherwise taught them. The specific ways in which their faith empowers them should differ depending upon the build of your paladin. A strikery juggernaut should be on par with a strikery fighter. A defendery fighter should be on par with a defendery paladin, though they should accomplish these goals differently. A fighter may lash out with AoO, a paladin may channel divine energy to blind nearby foes. A fighter might get multiple attacks, while a Paladin would get additional damage through Smite.
I believe that saying X should always win against Y leads us down a dangerous road where we have many false choices, and only a Quadratic Wizard or a Munchinked Fighter/Cleric/Pun-Pun are viable options. I believe that all builds(such as defense, damage, healing, support, and so on) should be roughly balanced against each other.
As a long player of MMOs, I know what it's like when one class, or one spec is expressly better at X than another class or spec that is intended to do the same thing. A druid who is build to heal should be just as good at healing as a cleric, though in different ways. Perhaps in certain situations where one style of healing is superior to others(large bursts vs small heals over time), then yes, one class may come out on top. But if a fighter is build to defend and a paladin is build to defend, then their capabilities to defend should be equitable.
The only ranger I ever played was a 4E and that was for the two weapon fighting style, and he was actually a monk - his weapon was Martial Arts. 
