Truthfully it was closer to "4e is steamlined mainstream lowest common denominator". So it isn't that someone is "Wrong" it is more that they are "Tasteless" which is really the mindset of the 4e arguements right now.
There's a problem with this line of reasoning: you're reading an opinion into what I'm writing that simply isn't there. My opinion is my own; I form it because of my preferences and experiences. You or someone else would have a different point of reference, so you'd reach a different opinion, or the same one for different reasons.
Look, something being "streamlined", "mainstream", or even "lowest common denominator" doesn't make it bad. It makes it... different. Is e.g., Crawl (very streamlined and accessible) worse than Incursion or ADoM? Is it better? No, it's different. If you want something that's got a tight UI and low complexity, it's better. If you're willing to sacrifice usability and cleanness for increased intricacy, it's worse.
I dislike the rigid, oversmooth MMO-esque structure of 4e. I'd be willing to sacrifice things it does well (accessibility and succinctness) for greater freedom and a rule structure that feels more organic to me. Some people wouldn't. I'm willing to avoid cheesy imba powergaming based on the honor system, so 4e being "well balanced" is a non-starter of a selling point for me. For other people, it's a welcome and refreshing change of vital importance. Someone who disagrees with my conclusions has different tastes than me, not no taste. Different strokes, and all that.
For a Paladin it makes perfect sense. Your basically setting a divine mandate that combat must happen or else the heavens will carry out a penelty or a rage towards the Paladin so great that resisting cause holy flame to wash over you. This coincides with the Martyr aspect of the Paladin as well.
Yes... but. This is, again, what I don't like. It makes perfect sense if you buy into the MMO paradigm whereby the rules define a carefully interwoven set of exceptions rather than a solid set of rules that all parties play by. If a fighter "focuses" on engaging someone, and they try to attack someone else, the fighter will opportunistically attack them. A wizard, for example, couldn't do that. Fine, they're not trained to interdict people. That idea is forced, but the argument can be made. But why won't a paladin who
is so trained attack them,
in addition to the divine zap? They won't because their class does things fundamentally differently to achieve the same outcome. The important thing is equality of outcome, even if it's achieved by a cobbled-together jumble of special cases and exceptions. It's forced and inelegant, even if it's very functional. If you don't mind that, fine. But it's not my cup of tea.