It's possible to spend none and die.
Which since Miser doesn't mean suicidal, is clearly not meant by the definition.
It always drives me nuts when you go around trying to force these absurd extremes, then turn around and accuse me of bad faith arguing Max. You want me to take what you say at face value? Then I must assume you don't understand the fact that most people aren't suicidal or you have no conception of what "as little as possible" means in a human context. Because saying it is possible to starve to death while hoarding money ignores both of those things.
Why not give them more? Um, because.....................miser.
Who by normal understandings of that title, would have given them nothing. So, being a miser didn't stop that, why would it stop them giving more? I mean, you want to out forth that they will starve themselves to death to avoid spending money, but somehow they are willing to give money to poor people?
You can repeat that until the end of time, and you'll still know that it's "More than a dollar," which isn't nothing.
It isn't nothing, it is just, you know, practically nothing.
Prove that. Show me where it says desires are only chaotic. That no lawful or neutral person follow their desires.
I did. You decided that following societies expectations is
really following your own desires. Which, is not how any person who wrote these games considers it. As long as you refuse to see conforming to other people's desires as following your own desires, then we are never going to get any where.
It's almost as if you haven't read alignment before. You are aware that there is a second axis that modifies the first, right?
I have read alignment. Repeatedly. Over years of the game. If your best defense of your understanding of alignment is a personal attack against me, then you have no leg to stand on.
Again, you accuse me of bad faith arguing constantly, and yet you seem to have no problem making personal attacks and insinuations. Do you think that I've quoted the alignment section of the PHB repeatedly in this thread due to luck?
It's also not a part of the oath as I quoted it to you earlier. The ones that doctors swear. So either it's worthless as a D&D oath, or it doesn't prevent evil. You can choose.
You mean the Hippocratic Oath? It does prevent evil. It is a different oath than "Do No Harm" but it clearly can be used by an Adventurer and it clearly prevents evil if it is your defining core belief.
Here is your problem. You want to seperate the actions of "being a good doctor" from everything else. You want their belief in being a doctor to be one thing, and their belief in murdering people to be another. But only one of them is a driving ideal. Only one of them can be the core of their belief system, unless we are dealing with a Jekyll and Hyde situation.
Following the Hippocratic oath as a doctor, and the Hippocratic Oath being the core belief that you shape your entire life around, are two different things. A doctor who follows the oath simply because it helps them make money, likely has an ideal related to money. A doctor who follows the oath as a cover for their criminal activities, likey has an ideal related to those activities. A doctor who would break that oath to pursue justice likely has an ideal based on justice.
Um, no. The description is a modifier to the ideal, though. It's not the ideal itself. I've been saying for pages that you need more than the ideal(and more than the blurb in the PHB) to tell alignment.
No, it is not a modifier to "the ideal itself" because a single word cannot be an ideal. As we have shown, as we have argued. You are holding onto an idea that no one else agrees with.
Because he isn't acting on whim or impulse. He doesn't have a deep seated belief in flaunting the rules and doing his own thing. Everything he does is about law, tradition, order and for others.
But you have argued that following the rules is because you desire to. So, he is following impulse. The impulse to follow the rules. He does have a belief in doing his own thing. That thing being following the rules. Traditions can be chaotic, you yourself argued that. Doing things for others is really doing things for himself, you argued that.
So... at least half these points you have said could make him chaotic instead of lawful