I feel like people are using the one example ("I don't like this one implementation of combat wheelchairs in D&D") as a wedge to argue against *all* character disabilities - when that's something that's been in gaming for decades, with lots of fun play. In general, it seems like some people are talking as if (a) disabled PCs are some theoretical new possibility that is only possible now with 2020 liberal activism, and (b) disabled characters are so weak that the GM has to twist his adventures to make them even easier.
Both of those assumptions are nonsense. The example I had of a PC in a wheelchair was from a HERO campaign I ran in 1989. Having character flaws including disabilities might be rare in D&D, but it's been built into many other RPG systems for decades. HERO was one of the first systems to feature this, but it's in tons of other systems since then - World of Darkness, Deadlands, Savage Worlds, and dozens of others. It's certainly not some new invention by millennials.
Further, in those systems, character flaws don't mean the PC is weak -- nor that the GM coddles the players by making things easy for them. In the 1989 HERO campaign, included superpowers, but it was closer to Watchmen than Superfriends. The PC in question (codenamed "Current") was shot through the chest at point-blank range, which was how he ended up in a wheelchair. This happened in the second half of the campaign when we were escalating up to a climactic conflict that was resolved using nuclear weapons. The PCs were all superpowered badasses, including Current, and they were dealing with serious and deadly foes, and I never pulled my punches.
In these games, if a PC has a major flaw, I rarely worry that they're too weak. More often, I'm concerned that they are overly powerful in their field from being highly specialized. As another example, I have twice played a PC who as a drunken master kung fu specialist -- combined with alcoholism. That was a major flaw and there were a lot of situations where he wasn't much help, but he was an extremely powerful martial artist who far outshone the others in combat. I'm pretty sure the GMs had to beef up the opposition after seeing me in action.
I did read your posts, and I replied to you with questions about your campaign world in Post #120.
Well, "It's Possible"--there could be a "blind" Warlock, or a handicapped Druid in the campaign, somewhere--though it certainly isn't probable. I mentioned that I would review such characters--whether NPC's or Player Characters--on an individual, case by case basis. If a "Blind" Warlock can use a spell at will to see perfectly well, well, then they aren't really blind then, are they? The same thing goes for a shape-changing Druid. It seems to me such particular examples would likely work better if such characters were non-disabled for whatever length of their career, and then became disabled, from which such a character could then take various steps and actions to mitigate their disabled condition. However, someone born with a severe handicap is not likely to become some kind of adventurer.
Beyond such "corner cases" the reality remains that severely handicapped characters would be weak and helpless, and pose as a distinct liability to any adventuring team. In general, most handicapped characters have problems that make them entirely unsuitable for a career as an adventurer.
In general, most characters aren't suited for life as an adventurer, just like most people in the real world aren't cut out to be on a Navy SEAL team. They just don't have the necessary qualifications, nor are they willing to risk their lives to that degree. Hell, most people in the military aren't suitable for being on a Navy SEAL team - they are a highly elite force. In a fantasy world, it's extremely rare for anyone to be a wizard or sorcerer or paladin. But player characters regularly are.
In almost all RPGs, player characters are always "corner cases". A typical peasant or woodcutter character would also be purely a liability to a SEAL team. Further, a shape-shifting druid isn't at all a rare case among PCs. If anything, it's one of the most common character types that I've seen in D&D 5E.
In short, most characters in the game-world are weak - and they would be a liability to a SEAL team. It's the rare exceptional characters who get to be player characters and go on adventures.
The whole fetishization of disabled characters is pretty weird. No, no special abilities, no compensation. No "Balancing" doodads and special uber powers. My world is harsh and brutal, and handicapped characters experience huge handicaps and problems just with struggling to live a normal life, let alone adventuring. It's stupid. People strapped into fucking wheelchairs are not going out trying to fight monsters. They would be swiftly slaughtered and eaten!
I think you're fundamentally mixing up what is *in-game* and is *out-of-game* -- as if talking tough about how you play your elf-games proves how you're really tough. But that's just Internet tough guy posturing -- especially since you've already admitted that disabled characters like warlocks and druids *are* potentially powerful.
In my D&D world, humans in general are weak and frail compared to dragons. Most humans wouldn't qualify to be on a SEAL team, and even a SEAL team couldn't deal with a dragon without modern weapons. But PCs aren't average humans. When my players create characters, they create heroes who special abilities and rare powers like spell-casting and shape-shifting. That's not fucking coddling them - that's laying out the basis on which I will challenge them. And yes, I do take steps to see that they're balanced.
I don't buy into having character creation be a contest of min-maxing. As GM, I take action so that all the PCs start out on roughly the same footing before I start throwing challenges at them. It's not fetishization or coddling to have characters be roughly balanced at creation time. That's just starting everyone out at the same starting line for the race.