Laurefindel
Legend
From what I remember, AD&D (1e and 2e, never player with older rulesets) were full of "aren't allowed to do X" and "cannot do X because they refuse to do it" for mechanical reasons rationalised as fluff. Even if "will not" wasn't use specifically (I'd have to delve into it to verify), it comes to the same: character cannot do X because that's not how they do it, period. Re: druid and specific weapons list and metal armor taboo, cleric prohibited from using slashing/piercing weapons because they don't want to shed blood, paladins and their code, rangers who won't store treasure they cannot carry with them etc.I'd be hard pressed to find a game, ANY sort of game, in the last 40 years that has a "Player will not" formulation. It's bad rule writing and sounds like amateur hour.
In other systems, d6 Star Wars's Wookies having claws to climb but never using them in combat comes to mind, and I'm sure I could find many other instances.
The difference is that in most of these case, there is a consequence for failing to comply. You're a ranger and commit an evil act? Welcome to fighterhood for the rest of your career! You're a cleric and used a sword for legitimate defense? Ask your DM because it doesn't say otherwise. You're a Wookie and used your claws? You're... dishonored, I guess