Well, that's the thing Seeten, I kind of do buy that argument (though I haven't played Palladium before, though it sounds like balance wise it's really messy).
I really do believe that even if you make a combat-oriented character, but don't do things like say "Well, I'll make a statistically powerful fighter, and take the hits to wisdom and charisma, because we just don't play the social downfalls of those scores, just the stat points for will saves, etc., that are inherited from it", then the game becomes unbalanced.
I think the roleplay feature DOES balance the game out. Maybe not for something like Palladium. I don't know. From what I've read, it really does sound like some classes really easily trump others, and no amount of balancing out your scores will save it.
For instance. Someone makes a half orc in some campaign, and optimizes him for full str, full con, and everything else comes secondary. Power-wise, he might prove to be this hulking juggernaut (this is all theoretical).
But, roleplay-wise, he's as useless as an unintelligent earthworm, or a goblin. And so, when you get to parts where you have to walk in towns, barter with the shopkeeper, learn information, solve the mysteries of a campaign, he's a hinderance. But in combat he's the king.
I'll admit, as a combat simulator, D&D is NOT balanced one bit. I don't think any Pen-and-Paper games that aren't centered around Person versus Person combat are. But, I think that the games races are decidely more "in-line with each other" if players don't overspecialize, which D&D most unfortunately rewards all too much.
