>1. It's been historical thing and accepted for a long time
>2. Playability (Tarus bracers)

Playability is a non-issue, as is historical precedent. This isn't a court room. If it's bad role-play then it shouldn't matter that such bad role-play was deemed acceptable at various times in the past.

>3. Visiting chessmasters and elsewhere (if any)

This is a perfect example of why "goods killing neutrals" should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Look at the butler. He's a golem. Golems are magical constructs that aren't sentient.

>4. Unfair advantage (If Good can't kill neutral for eq, then
>all things considered, Evil has more access to more equipment.

This is just a more specific phrasing of #2 above (playability). As such it's a non-issue. Goods have request, as well as arguably more badass good-specific gear. Amathylar, Defiance, Bal'talon, prayer beads, helm of brilliance...

>I disagree with Phaelim's point "If you want that piece of eq
>on the neutral mob, get i off an evil's corpse". That's very
>good in theory, but not entirely practical. Firstly, equipment
>is important to remain competitive.

What gear do you need in order to be competitive that absolutely requires you to kill a sentient neutral mob who isn't involved in some evil activity? I can't think of any.