It is somewhat interesting to see the various arguements regarding monks, alignments and warlords on the forums. I feed on the tears of pubbie pain;) Ten bux* if you get that reference.
Anyway the new monk has to be lawful. I have my doubts about the monk and its not based on alignment although it looks better than the 3.5 and Pathfinder monk from a mechanical PoV.
IN D&D alignment has traditionaly been very important to the extent the D&D multiverse was defined by the Great Wheel. Some campaign settings like Darksun were different of course but D&D core has more or less been about good vs evil and law vs chaos as they are cosmic forces of existence. This is probably from the influence Michael Moorcocks work had on D&D in the 70's as his world was defined by the conflict between law and chaos. Elric the Eternal champion more or less defined the anti hero/doomed champion archtype.
In D&D at least tradition is important IMHO. You may have a different opinion but consider the backlash against 4th ed and the rise of Pathfinder as proof. 4th ed was in trouble by some accounts as early as 2010. Pathfinder has gone from strength to strength and now supports various 3rd party publishers, minis and a novel line. Things that D&D used to have until the great sundering of 2008. Around about now some people will be rolling their eyes and thinking yay another edition wars thread which I will deal with below in regards to the warlord. But anyway first things first I will deal with why alignment restrictions are inportant using the Paladin as an example. Here is how I define the D&D Paladin. In essence what makes it tick or do its thing. I would argue that the Paladin in all editions of the game with the exception of 4th is.
1. Has to be LG.
2. Casts divine spells.
3. Can lay on hands
4. Can turn undead.
5. Can summon a mount.
6. Has a saving throw bonus
The 4th ed Paladin took a different approach and it did not have alot of these abilities and it was not required to be Lawful Good either. In Pathfinder their Paladin ticks all of those boxes but they added things to it. For example you can smite evil more often and it ignores DR and you can now smite at range (archer paladins). Lay on hands is now a swift action and you can summon a mount or have a bounded weapon which grants abilities such as keen to a weapon you wield. For the most part the Pathfinder Paladin is an additive while 4th ed one subtracts although to be fair it was mostly just different. However different in D&D is also bad. Another post has made a point a new edition of D&D is like trying to sell a car to the Amish.
Tradition is important in D&D. I'll concede that 4th ed is mechanically superior than 3.5 and Pathfinder, at the start of this year after DDI an out we switched to Pathfinder despite it being mechanically inferior. A large part of that decision was tradition, Golarion and the adventures paths AKA support.
Now I will deal with the percieved edition wars part of my thread.
4th ed upset alot of people by killing off the sacred cows. I don't think my Paladin example alone would have done so but it is safe to say that 4th ed was very different than 3.5 and previous editions. Vancian casting for example love it or loath it has been a part of every other version of D&D since day 1. By now we all know the about the backlash and ediiton wars. However on these very forums for the last few days it has been about the monk, warlord and alignments. I'm not sure what has caused all the Warlord threads but I suspect it was Mearls comments in the video that they may rename the class. Arguements have been made the Warlord made the sin of appearing in 4th ed and that it was a great success story of 4th ed.
For the most part I would agree with comments like that. I like the Warlord as a class more than say the Barbarian and the Monk both of which have had a weak core presence in D&D. The barbarian was only in the core books in 3rd ed, the monk in 1st and 3rd ed. Personally I would like to have the Warlord in D&DN even if the class is a direct port of the 4th ed one with the numbers tweaked and a variation of the powers that would probably be less space intensive of 4th eds list.
Here is the irony. The 4th ed players argueing for the Warlord are more or less arguing for the sake of tradition even if it is dresed up in a different skin. They do not like that the 4th ed warlord could be facing oblivion even as a name. This is the same thing that 3.5 players felt back in 2008 where the 4th ed PHB cut 5 classes from the 3.5 book and added 2 new ones. That why tradition is important as any IP that lasts a few decades has a certain feel/taste. One may not like that taste but one has other options. Think of things like brand identity such as Coke, Star Wars and James Bond. One expects the force in Star Wars and spaceships, James Bond has gadgets, cars and beautiful women.
In D&DN I want 4th ed players to have their warlord but I want my LG Paladin in the core book because thats what I think of when someone says Paladin. Its the Jedi of the D&D world. I have no problem with Paladin varients of other alignments. If one doesn't like the LG Paladin there will be 13 other classes to play, the DM can houserule the alignment restriction away and it won't be to far before anti-paladins or something similar turn up anyway in a splat book or Dragon magazine if one wants an official varient. Keep the Warlords name the same, it seems to be important to the people who like 4th ed and adding a new class to D&D is usually never a bad thing. Even the silly classes like Mystic, Dragon Shaman and Seeker**.
Tradition its important. People form an emotional attachment to it whether its church rituals, the superbowl, ceremonies on national public holidays. Traditions define cultures as well. Some tradiitons may seem silly or useless to you, but they are important to the people who care. Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, ANZAC Day, Bastille Day, Oktoberfest are all traditions for example. Vancian magic and alignment may seem silly to you from a mechanical point of view but your opinion is exactly that. We all have a different opinon and most of them are subjective although I am convinced the sky is green, everyone is just color blind.
*Monopoly money, to be paid out in 2314.
** My pet peeves are things like assassin as a class (its an occupation, gj 2nd ed), Samurai (its a fighter with a Katana), and Ninja (occupation, see assassin most likely a Rogue or Fighter Rogue).
Fear is the Mind Killer