0. The DM does not need to give you anything, if the DM says "I can't be bothered with that now", then you don't really have any avenue to protest...
1. It is an uncharted advantage, you can request an NPC but they will not be yours. To just give you a free character is unbalanced, especially a wizard who might be able to contribute without automatically dying.
2. Kobold mages are always sorcerers, not wizards.
3. Chaotic Good characters do not keep slaves, if you are willing to take the leadership feat at level 6 then you can have a cohort(leadership may require specific DM permission), but buying and keep a slave is completely opposed to the alignment.
3a."Good" implies a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
3b."Evil" implies oppressing others.
3c.Lawful characters respect authority, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
3d."Chaos" implies freedom.
3e.A chaotic good character makes his own way and hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do.
3f. Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
4. Worn clothes do not count against weight, and we already have enough nudity. Whilst kobold nudity may not bother your character, it most probably bothers the kobold, which would be fitting, seeing as it is an abused slave.
5.If you really really want it you can just reroll a new character...
0. Sorry if that's the case. I've never once heard him say "no", just a bunch of questions as to where the kobold would come from, which I feel have been properly explained.
1. Well, I wouldn't directly control him. That'd be silly. But an NPC who is obligated to some degree to follow my orders would be nice.
2. Now that's a decent argument. I was not aware of that, and it could be fixed if this was even allowed, which it apparently will not be *see argument 0*.
3. I must once again bring up the comparison to Batman and Alfred. Batman could be a total jerk to Alfred, since he is his butler and a servant of sorts. But he does not. He is close friends with him. That's what I am going for.
3a. Yes. Yes it does. That is indeed a quality that Ezio has.
3b. Indeed it does. I don't see what that has to do with this situation, as I don't see any oppression going on.
3c. That is also true. However, Chaotic Good characters don't necessary ignore the law, but they can if it gets in the way of helping the cause of Good as a whole.
3d. *Sigh* You keep determining it will be some sort of oppressive, spiteful relationship just because of the modern-day definition of the word "slave". There was a time when slaves were considered an important and loved part of the family, you know. If it will make you feel better, I'll call him a companion.
3e. I thought we'd gone over this already. Really, he's not some cruel taskmaster, he's a leader because the kobold needs to follow. Even Chaotic Good factions must have someone in charge and telling them what to do. That does not change just because the kobold is legally required to do so. Remember, Chaotic Good characters can ignore the law. Maybe Jeevus could leave whenever he felt like it, but he just prefers to stay with Aveldineir *See bottom of post for name explanation*
3f. We've covered this one already.
4. God, you're relying on the abused slave idea for your entire argument. Thus, your entire argument is invalid, for he is not abused. I figured it was pushing it enough that Jeevus has a Light Crossbow and a spellbook, so I figured "What money would he use to buy clothes?" I figured I'd find something for him to wear during the campaign. The nudity is by no means a permanent thing.
5. No, I will not. However, I don't feel like being constrained to the personality of an existing character, so Ezio will henceforth be known as Aveldineir.
Sorry to hear about all that, DM. Looking forward to Friday, then.
Author
Topic: Moar DnDs on the Interwebs (Back to Fridays\Sundays) (Read 88679 times)