And the fact that non-Death-Eater witches and wizards choose not to use it doesn't mean they can't, it means they won't.
First, Voldemort is not not the only wizard to use it in the series, I can think of at least two others, but it does not change the fact that, practically, it's an NPC only spell.
Whatever the reasons, it's what it comes down to.
Voldemort had no business losing, given how he was presented. His tactics were abysmal.
That has nothing to do with the fact that he had a huge impact on the setting.
Again, inniate abilities are what they are, and (in 1e anyway) there's a limited number of Death Knights (I think it's 12) meaning they're not likely to have a great influence on the setting as a whole.
Unfortunately, Lord Soth proves that a death knight can have a critical impact on a setting all on his own.
Two immense design mistakes caught in one sentence - well done!
As long as we agree that one of them was not restricting some powers to NPC, I am sure that we agree it's well done...
Kobolds are monsters and should not be PCs - mistake one.
Actually, we had a very interesting kobold character in our biggest campaign ever, he ended up being the god of scalebearers when almost the whole adventurers guild (it was a really special setting) ascended.
NPC Kobolds get powers that PC Kobolds do not - mistake two.
Actually, they forgot that one, and they gave PC kobolds the same powers as monsters through a stupid class power....
They have no right to advocate for their character?
Yikes.
If "advocating" means pestering the DM for advantage or trying to impress that "by RAW they are entitled to" whatever, no, they don't. Call me a tyrant...
After that if, in character, their character pesters NPCs it's absolutely fine, as long as they are prepared to deal with the consequences.
First off, my PC is my PC; within rules and genre constraints I in theory have full control over what it does in the setting and just because it does something you don't like doesn't give you-as-DM the right to take it away from me.
Actually, we completely disagree here. If, as a DM, I say "no evil PC" (which is a common campaign restriction) and your PC willfully commits an atrocity, and as a DM I judge that it turns him evil and therefore an NPC, that specific character in that campaign becomes just that, an NPC, which I control as the DM. You can find yourself another character to play, or leave the campaign and recreate the PC somewhere else, but the real character is still part of the campaign, as a NPC.
Second off, who says I'm departing from the flow of the campaign? (and who set that flow in the first place?) Maybe I'm setting a new flow.
And maybe it's not one that, as a DM, I want to master, and especially not one that the other players want to have in their game. So it's fine, it's a new flow, but controlled by the DM.
With rights come responsibilities; the corollary responsibility to the DM's right to do what you want is to not diminish the long term campaign for the short-term fun. Precedent is important; and every time you toos in one of these "cool and appropriate" ideas you're setting a precedent for the rest of that campaign.
Actually no, I don't. This is why I love 5e and its "rulings over rules". When I create such a ruling, it's local and adapted to the circumstances. As I'm pretty sure that these exact circumstances will not happen again, I am free to rule again as I wish for the next set of circumstances, which will be different.
You misread me, I think.
The example is flawed, but I'll run with it for now: if Voldemort without Avada Kedavra is too weak, don't replace him with 20 death eaters but instead give him a lieutenant or two with almost the same powers and abilities he has.
And it really does not work as well, noone does that in the genre so I don't in my campaigns either.
In D&D, if you're looking to run a solo Dragon and fear it'll be too weak as it stands, instead of giving it more abilities etc. add another Dragon to the mix by giving it a mate.
Or I just create a mythic dragon with special abilities and it works splendidly.
It's gamist only in that in my view the setting rules and constraints apply equally to everyone within the setting, exactly the same as how real-world physics apply equally to everyone on Earth.
It's the same for me, the rule that "only the chosen emperor-god of Zap can cast the debilitating death spell" applies equally to everyone, it just happens that none of the PCs can ever become the emperor god of Zap, since they are not chosen by the evil gods that govern him.
If an author is going to go to all the work of creating a vibrant and believable setting it seems a complete waste to then go and violate that setting just to make chapter 9 a bit more exciting. The Wheel of Time novels are awful for this, which is too bad because otherwise they're good reads.
I'm not even sure what you are referring to, but the Wheel of Time has a fairly consistent magical system, which actually follows fairly closely what happens at high level in campaigns, with PCs becoming powerful, then taking on responsibilities, then needing to abandon them for a time, etc. And the same thing with anti/counter magic thingie, which suddenly pops up to create obstacles, then becomes wielded by the characters, before some anti-anti-magic things pop up.
After that, while I agree that the middle books are quite slow, it's still one of the best sagas of the genre, and the final (Brandon Sanderson again) is absolutely epic.