As soon as I become a GM, I dislike having my 'main' or 'favorite' character. Each character I touch should be able to advance equally, in theory, regardless of how quick I am to make an NPC.

I have this firm believe that roleplayers, be them 1x1 or in large roleplay, do deserve universal rights. Rarely ever do I turn down a person out of distaste, although there are at least two people from these last few threads that I wouldn't allow in a roleplay of mine. That's important because again, I do believe power should be taken from GM's at times. But, simultaneously, I don't at all think characters for a roleplay deserve this same rights. If you make a character for a roleplay, you should be integrating it into the plot and setting. Some people like to do the opposite and prefer to build everything around a character or a set of them, which is fine for supporting interaction, but interaction only goes so far in terms of keeping a story and roleplay alive. Sometimes, sheer quality of plot or the versatility of setting are what keep a roleplay alive. In that sense, I do believe that characters don't deserve even the 'right to live' inside a setting. I believe that just like every living being on Earth is alive because it decided not to fucking walk off a cliff, that characters shouldn't be given plot-immunity. 

In short, player characters should never feel entitled to being powerful, entitled to living after doing something stupid, entitled to 'survive after doing something fatal that adheres to their character' or even to be on par with the villains. Now, roleplayers would hate this in theory, but if you put it into practice with a good GM, it's soooooo much more healthy than everyone roleplaying and focusing only on themselves and their characters.