Ok ... i get you wanted to do something and you dislike that you cant ...
You dont want to play with Larian ... thats fine aswell ... there is no reason for free will if we dont use it.
But how exactly is following the lore setting a "bad sign"? O_o
Im sory but i must argue that oposite actualy is ... ignoring setting rules is first step towards doom that takes form of beardless 2m high Dwarves. :-/
Because of the exact thing that PrivateRaccoon wrote, that swayed you.
Because if the lore of the world includes Wish spells, but the hill to die on is if whether elf mustaches and their riders are a thing that exists, then that's silly.
Because PC's by their nature are not "consistent with the lore", as they are Player Characters making their own lore. They start within the framework of a world, but are split apart by their special nature.
All of that would be a bad sign out of a DM because it showcases an inflexibility and adherence to the point of Dogma for something so inconsequential, that it will sooner or later bite you in another way.
That's the difference. As I wrote initially, lore is them choosing to enforce it for every single NPC that spawns it in their game world, not limiting players from realizing their own creation.
Perhaps my favorite argument that I saw while searching for a topic on this, was that fake beards or mustaches are a thing. I don't mean an in game item.
I mean imagine an elf wizard that's so insecure about having a majestic wizard beard that they get one magically glued to their face.
That character cannot exist in this system along with others like them, and that's a shame, and an artificial limitation for not a very good reason.
Lastly, I bought the EA the day it released. I've already played several characters. I was making a new one, looking at the creator, and noticed the inconsistency and limitation.
My initial reaction in 2020: "Heh, that's amusing.. no beards." Now in 2022: "Wait.. why aren't they just doing that for their NPC's so that players can make characters they want?"
