Chaosmancer
Legend
Because those words don't fit. Miser does. The words you just suggested imply a much greater amount of spending than the occasional few coppers to someone who is poor.
And Miser implies not giving any money to the poor, so your word doesn't fit either.
Miser is accurate for what I am saying. I don't need a different word.
No it isn't, it is "someone who spends as little money as possible" Giving money to the poor is not required, so not giving that money is "as little as possible"
I never claimed that there was a point value, but if a trait leans towards chaos, than chaotic has greater validity than lawful. I don't need to say that chaotic is 1.48572982654r9765t906732190438754r87yfkjhvdskjhfdsa,mncsaje298743219874321987321x more valid.
And $1.01 and $50 are both "more money" than a single dollar. That doesn't make saying "I have more money than a dollar" useful.
If all you are arguing is that it is possible, then congrats, it is possble in an infinite universe for just about anything to happen. But that doesn't make it "valid" to claim.
I've submitted exactly 0 contradictions in this thread.
You submitted the Miser who gives money to the poor, which is a contradiction, and fought tooth and nail to defend the Evil person who defends the weak by killing their enemies, which is also a contradiction.
So, that is 1 submitted and 1 defended.
Wrong. That lawful person followed his desire to put society first. People can and do have multiple desires at once, often putting some aside for others. When I look at a desert menu, I have a desire for ice cream, cake and pie. I only follow one of those desires, though.
Sure, people have multiple desires, but isn't how the phrasing it used when we say someone "follows their desires" or "puts others before their own desires"
And if we submit to your explanation of how everything is a desire, then there is no difference between a lawful person and a chaotic person, except their desires. You might as well say that a hungry man and a connoisseur have the same desires.
Sure they can. Nothing contradictory about it.
Yes there is. Harming people is directly contradictory to "Do no Harm" and I have yet to see an example of Evil that includes never harming anyone.
I could very easily make a character who was dedicated to the point of self-sacrifice to the healing and betterment of those who are ill, but who was abused and then abandoned by his mother who was a prostitute. That had a great impact on him psychologically and he's a serial killer of streetwalkers. However, that pathology doesn't stop him from his work as healer. He will still ecstatically heal anyone who is ill, oddly enough, even streetwalkers, though he may target one once she is fully healed.
It's not hard to find a way to match the desire and joy of healing with someone who is also evil. Evil isn't just one thing. That's just your narrow minded misconception of alignment.
No, it is your narrow minded view of "Do No Harm"
Read it again. "DO NO HARM", does that say that you heal the sick? Nope. It says "do no harm". If you kill someone, what is that? HARM. So, if you are a serial killer, then you are... harming people. Which directly contradicts your soul-deep belief in "DO NO HARM"
You seem to think that "Do No Harm" just means, "Heal the sick" or "Practice Medicine". That is not what it means. It means "DO NO HARM."
So, unless you can prove that killing someone doesn't harm them, you are arguing a contradiction. And yes, people can be contradictory. I understand that. But no system every devised for a game can handle contradictions like this. The system doesn't have space for "Good towards orphans, evil towards women, neutral towards dogs, good towards cats," ect ect ect.
Even alignment, which tried, just threw up its hands and gave us Grey Neutrality, which has no definition except "Not good or evil"
So first, you are misunderstanding that section. The ideals rules that you are quoting are if you are making up the ideal from scratch, so of course you will need to describe it completely. It then goes on to say you can pick one from the background. Those backgrounds give one single word and nothing more. One word. It's bolded for you. THEN, it gives a possible description that you can adopt or you can pick something else, but the ideal alone is that single word.
You can't say that the rules for ideals change depending on if you are using a poorly formatted example or if you are doing one yourself. That is like claiming that triangles can have four sides if you are building one, and only the examples in the book are three-sided.
This is a complete misstatement of my position. I'm saying that as written, the ideals in the PHB are a single word that doesn't tell you enough to go by. YOU have to create more for your character in order to tell whether that ideal is moral or immoral, and how.
Do no harm is not an ideal from the PHB.
We are not limited to the ideals in the PHB. Just like we are not limited to the names in the PHB, or the Personality Traits in the PHB.