Because the thing you want gone doesn’t affect your gameplay experience at all so you have no standing to request it’s removal. It’s that simple. But it does. If it didn't affect my experience at all, I wouldn't be here arguing for its removal. I don't know what else I can say that wasn't said already in this thread to help you empathize with me here. The long and well-written post by @zanos expresses it excellently.
Okay, explain it to me. How does an option you will never use or be encouraged to use or have a reason to use affect your experience?
Zanos didn’t provide an answer to that so that is still a mystery.
I did provide an answer, I said I was speaking from a design standpoint, a theoretical discussion if you will on what a developer chooses to put in their game. And while we are on that point, I keep seeing this 'don't like it, don't use it' line of reasoning to justify anything and everything, so let me ask you. Why doesn't Larian put in 6 characters? If you don't like it, don't use it. Why don't they allow Wizards to cast all spells? Druids? Clerics, spells are spells after all. Just pieces of the weave, oh, you don't like it? Don't use it, don't scribe them.
Why don't we allow Paladins to self-justify what constitutes breaking their oath in game? I'm sure I could reason out through a dialogue option or two why I murderhoboed someone in the name of righteousness and why that doesn't deserve my oath being broken. Why are there specific item slots? I mean I can wear two shirts, two pairs of pants, especially when it's cold out, I should be able to equip two shirt slots with overlapping bonuses. Oh, you don't like it? Don't use it.
Where do you draw the line here? This is the precise reason why games have rules, providing a sense of structure while maintaining a degree of consistency. I just don't understand why this argument keeps being used when you can literally use that argument to justify any single thing that you want put in the game even if it doesn't belong there.
