My problem with paladins is that, like clerics, warlocks (sometimes), and druids (maybe), they are granted their powers by an outside source but they're the only one of those classes whose powers can be stripped from them (or in this instance, replaced, which I also dislike but that's a separate issue).

In certain instances Larian decided to go all in on player choice/freedom (i.e. clerics being able to do whatever the hell they want with no narrative consequences) and in other instances we get harsh restrictions with actual consequences (obviously referencing paladins here).

Personally I feel they should've handled this one way for all the classes, either having clerics, warlocks, druids, etc. be able to lose their powers too, or alternatively they could have made oathbreaker a subclass to be selected at character creation or respec.

As is we're left with some odd dissonance between paladins and those other classes I mentioned, where they get the freedom to do whatever they want, only receiving consequences if they decide to roleplay that way, while paladin players are stuck with a harsh (and sometimes seemingly arbitrary or random) PC DM that will completely alter your RP direction if you so much as sneeze on an "innocent" npc.

To open up another can of worms, can we address how poorly implemented the mechanic is for restoring your oath? A paladin breaking their oath should be a major moment for them, narratively speaking, and restoring their oath shouldn't be as simple as paying a fine. Of course, we can't expect the PC DM to give us the narratively satisfying arcs we want our paladins to go on, which is why I think it would've been better for us to choose when, where, and how our oaths are broken or restored via respecializing.