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.
Rules are limits by definition. As I said before, that is typically a good thing. Without limits on how far a pawn can move and in which direction, there wouldn't be any game.
My point is that for someone like Dez who likes to assign characters an alignment as a guide to their behavior, you don't need a ruleset for that. You can have the concepts of good and evil in a game without any universal rules on how they operate. The purpose of rules is to impose limits, and the question at hand is whether the specific limits of alignment mechanics enrich the game or not, rather than whether the concepts of good and evil should be included in the game or not.
For example, you could have a humor mechanic in the game that defines whether something funny or not. Since it is a universal attribute, everyone would be required by the rules to find something with the
funny attribute amusing.
Personally, I would find such a humor mechanic stifling. I would prefer for it to be possible for one person to find a joke hilarious, while another doesn't find it funny at all. I would also prefer that it be left up to the player to decide whether their character finds a joke funny or not, rather than having to roll a d20 and add their sense-of-humour modifier.
This isn't to say that I don't think humour has a place in the game. It absolutely does. But rules on humour would be stifling rather than enriching.
