Quote from: vytzka;694541I think there has been a lot of demonizing of or at least sneering at wish fulfillment in games as being somehow wrong an immature. So folks will be understandably shy about it.

Yeah I am with you.
Wanting to play a white knight because the world is genuinely dark and full of terrors seems like a fine wish
so does wishing you could fly or shoot lasers from your eyes etc etc ...

But in every specific situation there's a cut-off point where it becomes unreasonable. For instance, having a wish-fulfillment character who shoots laser from his eyes is perfectly in some games (likes supers or a certain type of sci-fi), but for others it goes too far. Expecting (and feeling entitled) to fulfill that particular wish would be out of place in a low-magic fantasy game or Call of Cthulhu or something of the sort, because it infringes on the others players' freedom to fulfill their own wishes - such as playing a CoC hardoiled private dick or a Dark Ages viking or whatever without being forced to mingle with Marvel mutant characters.

Or to put it in non-RPG terms:
It's a perfectly valid wish for a chess player to win with an elegantly executed Queen's Gambit - and hopefully, someday he'll get to do just that. However, he isn't entitled to sit down for any one specific game and expect to do that, because the other player is under no obligation to play a strategy that offers the first guy a chance to pull off a Queen's Gambit and win.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;693718I am fine with all those except vi, which seems like a real snap judgment over a minor difference of the character.

Same here. An alignment change (except perhaps by magic, in which case the causality is the reverse) should be demonstrated in behavior over a significant period of time prior to the change in formal designation. The original magazine presentation of the two-axis system (and I think also the 1st ed. DMG) suggested that the DM should use a graph.

Quote from: Premier;694616Or to put it in non-RPG terms:
It's a perfectly valid wish for a chess player to win with an elegantly executed Queen's Gambit - and hopefully, someday he'll get to do just that. However, he isn't entitled to sit down for any one specific game and expect to do that, because the other player is under no obligation to play a strategy that offers the first guy a chance to pull off a Queen's Gambit and win.

Dungeons & Dragons and other such games provide the opportunity to attain an astounding (and perhaps unlimited) range of states -- but not the guarantee of attaining a particular one with a particular character.

That's what makes it a game in the same sense that Chess is a game (and just making up a story an "entertainment" or "pastime," but not a game in that sense).

Quote from: Premier;694616But in every specific situation there's a cut-off point where it becomes unreasonable. For instance, having a wish-fulfillment character who shoots laser from his eyes is perfectly in some games (likes supers or a certain type of sci-fi), but for others it goes too far. Expecting (and feeling entitled) to fulfill that particular wish would be out of place in a low-magic fantasy game or Call of Cthulhu or something of the sort, because it infringes on the others players' freedom to fulfill their own wishes - such as playing a CoC hardoiled private dick or a Dark Ages viking or whatever without being forced to mingle with Marvel mutant characters.

I disagree that there is any objective cut-off point.  I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a mutants-vs-Cthulhu game. If a bunch of people at the table think that would be fun, then there's no reason why they can't do that and have fun. In that case, if one player wants to play a hardboiled detective in a no-mutants setting, then he's the one infringing on the others.

Obviously, people can conflict over what they want to do. However, that's a matter of differing taste among them, not objective standards. We all should expect and feel entitled to fun at the game - although we might need to compromise to all get that. If people are not expecting to have fun - and feel like they have to earn the right to have fun, that makes things less fun.

Quote from: vytzka;694541I think there has been a lot of demonizing of or at least sneering at wish fulfillment in games as being somehow wrong an immature. So folks will be understandably shy about it.

I think there's a type of "wish fulfillment" that's more along the lines of "I want to be the bestest and everyone will likely me and nobody can ever beat me at anything because I'm the bestest!" that probably causes that demonization, even though other types of wish fulfillment aren't problematic at all.

Quote from: vytzka;694541I think there has been a lot of demonizing of or at least sneering at wish fulfillment in games as being somehow wrong an immature.

Wish fulfillment isn't immature in and of itself, but, in my experience, it's often associated with immature behavior by some gamers.

I think number 'iv' in the OP's list is acceptable ONLY if that's something that ALWAYS happens.  Not just something the GM has decided happens this one time because he wants to get rid of a magic item or items.