I think it's worth separating them in that context. The mechanics aren't the problem for you, the fluff is where you have an issue. It's OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept and how you picture him, as long as they use supernatural means. It's only someone pulling one over on you using a skill or natural ability (however extraordinary, however poorly your character may be defined as being able to cope with such things) that's unacceptable. Someone fooling your -1 WIS, untrained Insight character when you think he shouldn't believe them. Unacceptable. Someone slipping you a Helm of Opposite Alignment and turning your do-gooding Paladin into an inhuman fiend, no problem.
Actually, no. I'm most definitely
not saying it's "OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept". Ever. Even if it's magical. I stop at "it's ok for your character's actions to have a beneficial effect on my character as long as it doesn't dictate how my character thinks." I'm never, ever ok with any sort of PvP unless both parties agree to it and are having fun. (That includes the use of social skills, from PCs or NPCs: a PC at my table never has his thoughts or actions dictated as the result of a good Intimidate or Persuade roll.)
It's not a new or unfamiliar or unjustified idea. Back in the day (for those who weren't there), that's very much how we did things. There were a few mechanics, like morale, that determined how a character felt or reacted, and they often exempted PCs, explicitly. A PC could stand and fight to the last every time, never checking morale, because they're the heroes, they're made of sturner stuff than the NPCs. Now, for whatever reason, we don't have morale checks, at all. We have magical effects that impose the frightened condition. :shrug:
RIP morale checks for NPCs! (I just improvise it now. "Ok, when the Captain collapses in a pool of blood the rest of them try to flee...")
It's not. "I'd like to be able to play a good 5e version of a class I could play from the PH1 in a past edition, one that enables styles of play that edition did, and this one doesn't do as well, yet" is not unreasonable or invalid at all. It's something anyone who wanted to play /any other class from a past-edition PH1 already has/. Telling everyone who will ever play D&D what classes they can and can't play, ever, by contrast, is not reasonable. Dealing with table issues with global system solutions is not a valid approach.
I'm not saying you're the bad guy here. I'm saying, wanting to play a certain character a certain way is a personal thing. It's not right for the game to say 'no you can't,' especially when you've been able to in the game, before. It's not right for one player choice to mechanically dictate another. An LG Paladin in the group doesn't mechanically mean you can't have a CE Walock, they're powers won't cancel out or anything, but they are going to have to figure out how it's going to work RP-wise. It's something that needs to be worked out at the table level. Which classes does the DM find appropriate to the campaign, which do the players want to play, which set certain players' teeth on edge, which concepts have compatibility issues, how can we work it out so we can all enjoy a game of D&D?
Yeah, we keep circling around on this one and I disagree. Adding options changes the game. It's perfectly valid to be opposed to options that change the game in a way you don't like.
I hate Drow, and if WotC had asked my opinion I would have said, "Don't make that a player character option." It lessens the game for me to get stuck in parties with Drow (pretty much every AL table I sit at, really) in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with mechanics. Just like it would lessen the game if one of the other characters had a laser pistol, even if it did exactly the same damage as EB. (Actually, don't get me started on EB...) I just don't want to play in a shared illusion that includes laser pistols. The content creates the setting.
So no matter how many times people try to cut off the discussion by saying, "You are just being selfish/arrogant and there is no reason to oppose the inclusion of options", that argument is simply false. Ok, I'm not being
generous. I'm not offering to lessen my own experience to heighten somebody else's, but if that's your definition of "selfish" then we're both being selfish because you apparently want to do the same thing to me. You (the plural, abstract "you" meaning the Warlord proponents) seem to think I should be able to just roll with the Warlord, name and all, and not let it bother me, and I equally think you should just be able to use one of the magical, Warlord-esque options already out there. I think you're being overly fussy and demanding by saying "it must include these 7 features and can't be magical" and you think I'm being overly fussy and demanding by not wanting to have to play in a game with this particular class.
What astounds me in all of this is that you think you are on the moral high ground.