The function of a ruleset is inherently limiting by its very nature.
This really shows the poor understanding of the game, and possibly the wrong choice of a hobby. This specific system is a way to allow players a way to include two very important thematic aspects of a fantasy world into a game, and is interesting and adds richness to it as a result. In general, the basic D&D rules are several hundred pages long, and are not "limiting." What a strange thing to say. That is the opposite of what a game is. I wonder how a person with this attitude ever got mixed up in a game with so many rules that limit their need for endless freedom and power. This attitude could be the result of only having experience with new or immature players, or just that the player is not part of the intended audience for the game. It's funny to hear this kind of tantrum being thrown because a player does not want to follow "The Rules." The rules are there for good reasons. The game is the rules. Their purpose is to allow for common participation in a logical representation of a shared world. That compromise is what allows cooperation and interaction. Someone unwilling or unable to compromise and exchange their perspective may cause problems in the group later. But this does not work unless the players bring a sufficient amount of their own awareness of how these rules are an opportunity. You need them to include more than just your own fantasies and daydreams. Seeing the value in the design of these rules does require a certain amount of maturity and wisdom, and is definitely the wrong game for someone with a solipsistic personality. The kind of person that thinks an economic scholar is "Evil" and an egoist author is "Good" may have difficulty in seeing the diverse possibilities that this game system is attempting to capture.
As a theoretical construct this is valid but we aren't really talking about the game in its true form where you are playing with other human beings who you can discuss the interpretation of the rules and come up with a balance that makes sense. We are discussing a computer simulation of the game that is meant to be played in person. There is no "common participation" - rules such as alignment which are by nature arbitrary then get applied in a way which is arbitrary by whoever decides and we all just have to live with it even if it makes no sense.
As an applied science those rules resulted in failures on multiple occasions.
Take Bg1 and 2. The concept of Alignment was juxtaposed with the concept of Reputation - so that if your reputation was too high your "evil" party members would complain and even leave the party. Why would an Evil person dislike having a good reputation?
Especially if a low reputation would result in being chased by guards and paying more for everything?
Alignment became this heavy-handed thing that dragged the game down. Solution, minimize its effect on the rules. In 5e, according to the Rules - Alignment is not a huge deal. So are you saying you prefer the 3.5 ruleset to 5e?
