Instead of hitting all of your points like I would normally, this time I'm going to retaliate with a whole new set of logic.
You just said that "The system is idealistic but it wouldn't function site-wide", which should moot every single point you made before hand. Using the system I have implemented that you just called idealistic on the beliefs I would have it implemented is a giant assertion that completely contradicts every point you just made.
The system I would have had implemented did not dictate everything by forcing it to use the 'same' system. Any 'system' could be used on it, the difference is that it would literally exclude tyrants. It would diminish abuse. It would let you create a republic or an empire without fear of true tyranny. Now, to jump back to a few cases now that I have asserted we are on a basis of logic that is not 'commonplace' such as it actually is on the Guild.
The GM's? However, he can plainly explain to the player that set of traits wasn't intended to be allowed, and offer to help the player make something else. No system is perfect and sometimes unexpected results occur.
For example: I remember in Pathfinder, I made a fighter who, at level one, had +7 rolls to hit and +2 to damage. He was plain, outright one hit killing pretty much everything in his path, but if the DM made the rest of the monsters harder to compensate, my allies would have been useless, or worse still, slaughtered by SuperGoblins™. When the DM calmly explained that it was a flaw in the system that let me min-max that hard, I agreed to rework my character into something more reasonable so that everyone else could have fun and feel useful, and not useless.
All the while, the DM had absolute power, so if instead of doing that I decided to be a raging dipshit who refused to change anything about my precious character who is absolutely perfect in all things, the DM could simply remove my cancerous attitude before it spoiled the moods of everyone else.
Why? Because this is entertainment. If it's not, in some way, enjoyable, then it has lost its purpose.
A character with that level one preset power is a gift from the roleplay Gods. In most circles I involve myself it, they would have totally wanted that character to be designed with a unique personality and character concept, possibly to create a plot-justified reasoning for the mechanic-granted stats. There is a solution that doesn't involve a GM power-slamming a roleplayer using underhanded tactics. The 'cancer' there never had to be cancer. I know people, on the other hand, request a re-roll because a strong character is NOT what they enjoy playing. That's just personal preference and if a game flaw allows it, so be it.
No justice needed. Player did not fit in, player refused to change, player was ejected. Now the player can go find a different RP that could actually tolerate his or her creation. This is actually the best possible way to do it. Forcing the GM to put up with this character they straight up don't like will only make everyone miserable. Including the person who made that character, because they will never feel welcome. Being kicked out, they can now try again in a new RP. Of which we have many to choose from. Or, if there are no RP's currently available that interest them, they can go make their own.
This is, by definition, an incredible healthy system at work. It ensures that everyone gets the choice to do as they wish over their "property". People who don't belong are kicked. Is that unfair? Yes. Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?
I vehemently disagree with this. You're using these strong, negatively strong words as if to describe something that is immediately toxic, and that's just plain not the case
EVERY SINGLE TIME. You just made so many assumptions in this statement that I frankly don't even want to dissolve it. In fact, Brovo, I expected a lot more from you as our back and forths are slowly growing entertaining, but this was just pitiful.
In short, yes, a GM should have to be forced to deal with their mistakes, just as any person should. That's responsibility and accountability, plain and simple.
Life isn't really fair. This is as good a time as any to learn it.
Fuck right life isn't fair. I never said it was. Yet, we have systems for justice and fairness placed into life each and every day. Using the statement, "Life ain't fair" to ever shut down a system of governing is just... well, weak. I expect a lot more than these diluted responses. You were doing so much better, and I'm not even being a dick here. What the Hell happened?
The player. A mistake in the system does not warrant then granting an exception only for that one player. It warrants an apology to that player and an explanation. Nothing more. Otherwise you set the precedent that every other player should get game breaking system exceptions. Then what's the point of having a system?
You're just made this far too extreme for its context. I never referred to it as game-breaking or even detrimental. The rule could have been arbitrary. You just completely ignored that. What the fuck, man? The precedent should be set that a player that designs a well-crafted, applicable addition to a roleplay only to be told they 'just made a rule' denying such AFTER said creation should definitely be slipped in, and you just ignored that very basic precept.
I don't even know what you're doing anymore, Brovo. You just argued that the arbitrary was relevant and brought up a whole bunch of assumed traits and points to topics that never even had them. What the Hell?
Addition
Does that mean that the GM should then have to put up with this person they plainly dislike for one reason or another for the sake of fairness that will now slowly poison the mood of the entire role play as the actions committed by this solitary player slowly poison the entire system and by extension plot and world because they refused to make even the slightest of changes to their absolutely perfect creation?
An example of what I mean is if a GM created a set pool of traits and a set of rules for creating a character. If a roleplayer creates a character using a small dysfunction in that system allowing for a slightly off-the-wall set of traits and/or abilities, but does so creating a character around that core, whose fault is it? If the GM later instates a rule or a set of guidelines forbidding it, but by far not before the completion of that character,
I just plain have to tack this on. Do you realize how
FAR you warped that original statement? Do you realize you are implying that a 'grandfathered' aspect could ruin an entire game without knowing anything past the concept basis here? I even used words like "small dysfunction" and "slightly off-the-wall", and you go on acting like I'm throwing a rabid pit bull into field of kittens. You just did that to EVERYTHING I said. It's so extreme and radical. I couldn't take half of it serious. I
won't take that serious because it is literally raping my words. You took valid arguments and turned them into propaganda.
Addition #2I didn't ever even MENTION that neither party here refused to compromise or change. You added that on yourself. That is an assumption. You could have asked, 'well, did they try to compromise?' or 'Well, how important was this change?', but instead you immediately jumped to the defense of any GM and acted like it was a roleplayer with absolutely no desire to meet in a middle ground. That's how far you are twisting my words. I feel like you just raped my post.