We all approach roleplay slightly differently, with some of us sticking closer to the established lore and others taking more interest in the negative space surrounding known lore. Most of the time, that creates no conflict, but with the dispute about player-character Palestra, it's clearly an issue. The reason why, as I'd mentioned before, is that official lore is saying two different things. In some documents, it suggests Palestra are common enough that a fairly trifling sorcerer could hire one; in others, they're an elite cadre of highly trained fighters, rare and unbelievably costly to acquire. As long as this contradiction exists, there's going to be heartburn over the player-Palestra question because some players understandably took the earlier document as their inspiration.
I understand why GMs would want to keep the Palestra as a purely GM-run, rarefied type of character and love the idea of these larger-than-life destroyers being a piece of Faendryl history; from that perspective, it'd be almost as much a mistake to allow player-run Palestra as it would be to let people claim to be the child of an Arkati and expect to be taken seriously IC. If you want to create an elite group of incredibly powerful people in a roleplaying game, the last thing you want to do is allow players to roll one up. They'll lose all their mystique. Hell, sometimes it's hard enough to fathom how sorcerers are allowed in the game, given how incredibly powerful they were historically and how they're just another PC choice in the mangler -- not that I'm suggesting you take that option away, of course!
I also understand the position of players who have spent years building a Palestra character based on pre-existing lore and who have been accepted as such by other players' characters; previous lore suggested Palestra were tough and hardy, but also that they were common. The word "Palestra" didn't mean "demi-god" but "seasoned warrior," by that interpretation, and that would appeal to anyone who wanted a place in established lore on which to build a solid character. Players were practically invited to roll one if they played a square or semi. Watching these players who accepted that invitation and RPed Palestra get told a hard no by GMs in character is acutely uncomfortable to me (and is probably even less fun for the GMs and players involved, I'd imagine). People are clearly invested in the Palestra issue on both sides, but there should be some ways to compromise.
What can we come up with together to avoid creating an adversarial relationship where there should be a cooperative one on this single issue?
