It really doesn't. I think Mistwell actually misunderstood my point, actually.
I understood his point and it was a response that indicated that he understood yours. Your response missed his entirely, though.
If you want to know how a creature is played, as you just pointed out, the alignments aren't useful (because then a Lawful Good society could engage in child sacrifice[1]).
No. I pointed out that the a single vague sentence isn't helpful, not that alignment isn't useful. Alignment should be a bit more detailed so as to let new players understand it better. And no a LG society cannot engage in child sacrifice. A misunderstanding of LG due to one vague sentence is how that could occur, though.
Nuitari is the Lawful Evil god of evil magic, but that doesn't explain what that actual means. Is some magic inherently evil, so that anyone who casts it risks becoming evil? Is it just types of magic that are evil but only because they encourage the user to perform evil acts, like creating zombies or mind controlling others? Is it any magic that has an evil result, so if you heal the serial killer who is nearly dead and send them out to murder again, does that act of healing count as evil magic?
Two things.
First, yes. It's any or all of those at the DM's discretion. He gets to decide what evil magic means. Going by RAW all of those qualify. Some magic is inherently evil. Creating zombies is one of those types of magic. Using magic for evil purposes would also be evil magic.
Second, your questions don't touch on alignment. Evil exists even if alignment doesn't, so either it's Nuitari, LE god of evil magic if alignment is in the game, or Nuitari, god of evil magic if alignment is not in the game.
You want to say "the army's soldiers are mostly Neutral Evil" and use that as a shorthand way of saying "they will do their job but probably aren't going to be particularly honorable about it and may or may not take prisoners and may disobey orders if obeying them means their deaths"
No. I want to say "the army's soldiers are mostly Neutral Evil" as a way of saying, "That they are just plain evil. They have no rules on when or if they will commit an evil act. And they are not psychotic about it. They just do it when they want, for whatever personal reasons that they have." It let's me know when playing them that they are not going to run around gleefully torturing everyone that they defeat, but that if it's expedient to kill an entire village so that word doesn't reach the rulers of the country that they are invading as quickly, that they will do it and not shed a tear.
But comparing alignment to AC is silly because the type of armor being worn doesn't actually mean anything like what alignment is supposed to mean.
This is why I said you missed his point. He wasn't saying armor means what alignment means.
And also, AC isn't a shorthand for anything, because the number itself is what's important, not the type of armor. D&D doesn't do enough with different types of armor for the type of armor to be more important than the number it produces.
This is wrong. You can have 5 creatures with AC 20. One might have light armor and be very agile and quick. Another might have thick scales. The third might have magical skin that is hard to penetrate. The fourth might be wearing magical plate and shield. And the fifth might be wearing hide armor, but have a mental ability that throws off attackers.
AC 20 is short hand for all of those, but you aren't going to know exactly which until you read the description of the creature. That's the similarity that
@Mistwell was pointing out, not that AC 20 influences creatures actions the way alignment does.
[1] And if sacrificing a child means the dread demon won't arise from the pit to devour the village, it might actually be a Lawful Good act.
Good and evil are objective in D&D. An evil act doesn't become good regardless of reasons you think justify the act.
dnd.wizards.com
