There are exceptions to every rule, we all know that, but it seems on Armageddon the exception to the rule gets looked down upon for some reason, or at least that's the feeling I'm getting from the recent postings on the RAT thread.
It depends on the rule itself. If you mean the rule being the documentation, then yes, people should play to the documentation far more often than they play the exception to it. However, the exceptions you refer to seem to be different. I gleaned that from your next paragraph, which was a little confusing overall since it did not seem to be related to real exceptions to the documentation (I'll break it down to explain why):
I like the richness of our documentation,
I like a character that is real and flawed, more.
This is where I disagree. The way you are wording this implies that a real and flawed character is something that exists in the absence of rich documentation. I've seen plenty of people play to the documentation to a "T" and have awesomely real and flawed PCs at the same time. If that's not what you meant, cool!
If there weren't exceptions, there wouldn't be half-breeds
These are exceptions to the racial norm of the entire makeup of the Known World--however, they are not exceptions to their racial documentation or the overall game's documentation. Breeds exist. There is documentation to support their existence. There are fewer of them overall than many of the other races, but this doesn't make someone playing a breed "the exception to the rule" that people complain about when they complain about "snowflakes."
Same as above.
or even half-giants.
There wouldn't be city elves
or city humans.
Disagree. These are the most predominate race in Zalanthas. Playing one (by default) means you are playing the racial norm, if that's what you're referring to here.
There wouldn't be people who rebelled against the Sorceror Kings
These people may be an exception to the majority and an exception to the common documentation (MOST people are okay with the status quo or at least aren't actively trying to rebel against it). Consequently, it is dealt with IC by the powers that be.
or murdered their bosses,
Murder, corruption, betrayal. Keywords there would be "betrayal" followed quickly by "murder." This is an exception to loyalty and peacefulness but hardly an exception to the overall gameworld's documentation.
there wouldn't be life sworn defecting, there wouldn't be turn coats.
The funny thing is, that I know certain people complaining about the amount of exceptions are exceptions themselves. Heh.
Well, if you're referring to all of the things you mentioned above as "exceptions" then yes. It would
surprising if we had no elves, muls, half-giants, breeds, rebels, etc, because everyone would be playing the same thing. The game would be boring as all hell. If those things you mentioned are the exceptions you think people are playing (or complaining about) then everyone
is guilty to some extent.
I've personally never met a one dimensional character and hope never to play one. I like flawed, I like characters who think A, get slapped in the life with A and get a taste of having to deal with their own limitations. I also like those hard core perfect stereotypes that know their place in the world and aren't afraid to show it (provided they live in a place where it can be openly displayed). I like characters whose public face is nothing like their inner core and it takes getting to know them to really see what they're really like.
I agree with all of those things.
You're the rule until you're not, you're the exception until you're not but you write the background and the quirks, if your character isn't living and experiencing things that are life changing, I see that as a stagnant personality, not a "real" person.
I agree for the most part, yes.
You can't tell me that if your mate of five years who you are devoted to undyingly suddenly turns out to be a magicker you're gonna stay a magicker hater to the same degree, you might be driven to murder, you might never trust anyone who reminds you of them, you might suddenly become a magicker lover.
Gimme flawed any day - Just have a reason for it.
Agreed, there are many possible reactions there.
I pointed out all of the exception stuff above because that isn't the kind of exception stuff we generally mean on the staff side when we refer to people "playing the exception to the rule."
Things I'd see as bad exceptions:
A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that have no issue with magick whatsoever, regardless of background and life experience.
A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that have no issue with screwing individuals of another race, regardless of background and life experience.
A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that have no other prejudices that would be normal for their place of origin, race, economic background, etc.
A PC that routinely plays against the established documentation for their tribe.
A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that play against the established documentation for any organization. (This is more because it sucks for us
having to deal with them; if you can set a watch by the mistakes they make either out of ignorance or intent, it can be an issue.)
A dwarf that shows little to no interest in pursuing his or her focus.
An elf that more or less acts just like a human.
An elf that rides (or a half-elf that looks like an elf, riding).
A half-giant that is intelligent and wise.
A half-elf that doesn't roleplay the convoluted nature that is their very existence.
The closer one comes to any of these things, the more it is likely to be labeled as a bad exception. If every PC you play is "an exception" to something or other that is commonly accepted as "the documentation," then these should be labeled as bad exceptions, too.