? What are you even talking about????? Read the PHB man. Read! At certain ideal, there are words that restricts (more or less) the alignment that can take them. (And Helldritch throws his arms in the air in exasperation)
And now it makes sense. This is the problem right here.
Helldritch, the list of personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws in the PHB is not prescriptive. You don't have to take one of those, you can make your own. In fact, you are encourage to.
Your alignment can't restrict you from taking them, because you are writing them and figuring them out yourself. This isn't a list that you pull from, it is a blank space you fill in. And, yes, I am aware that they tried to make ideals that correlated to some alignments. Generally very poorly, because they were not well-written
examples. But, trying to claim that your alignment restricts the ideals you can take is ludicrous, because you are writing your own ideals. Will there be a correlation? Sure, if you picked "I want to be evil" on your character sheet, you probably aren't going to choose an ideal like "Charity towards the poor" as your ideal. That isn't the character you want to build. But that isn't a restriction any more than deciding that your character has an elven name because you picked an elf is a restriction.
1) Nope. Read the PHB man. Read.
2) Nope. Any general ideal. Even specific ones could be used. Some can not. What are you arguing about that was not clear from the beginning.
3) The claim only fell apart in your mind. With the generic ideal, it worked out as intented. Which kinda prove my point as you had to invent a wonky ideal (my journal) and a very specific one to prove me wrong, forgetting the specific beats general in the process. You are the one stretching the debate.
1) I do read. Attempts to discredit my points by declaring I must not read are childish and I wish you would stop. It is unbecoming.
3) As I have said, your generic ideal was not only far too vague, but then you yourself started tying it in knots to justify your point. Making "Defending the Weak" about "Destroying my Enemies (and incidentally defending the weak in the process)
Again, inventented bonds that are not in the PHB is your prerogative but you have to provide context so that I can debate. Of course if you truly want I could twist it for evil.
Bond: My journal.
The evil character takes great care of his journal as he wrote down every single crimes he ever committed and will ever commit. He also has in his journal every single piece of information that could be used against notables, nobles and merchant that he has ever blackmailed. The evil character is ready to kill so that is journal does not fall into anyone else's hand. All his dark secret are in there.
Or would you prefer good?
The good character has a secret journal where he keeps the location of fugitives of an evil warlord that could kill for this information. The good character must keep this journal safe as one day, the true heir to the throne will need to come back and only the character knows that the location is in his journal in a language that even he can't read so that the secret can not be pried easily from his mind.
See? I can do it. It is not perfect but it can be done. Not graciously as I would like. But I can do it. And I could do it with your father example too. It's not that hard to do. As long as the bond or ideal isn't too specifically ingrained into an alignment. I can do it.
Again. specific beats general. Nothing new there. That you ignored it to "win" is not a good debate strategy.
First off, that bolded phrase? That is showing that you are trying to limit this discussion to the examples in the PHB, as though that is all PIBF are.
Those are examples. Just like you claiming that I could name my character Moonswallow, but invented character names outside of the PHB aren't part of the discussion. The examples in the book are not the end all be all of what can be done with these blanks spaces.
And, also again, you are right. Specific beats General. "My journal full of refugees I saved" is very different from "My Journal full of horrific crimes I committed" and I don't need alignment to tell me which is which. But I am also not going to sit here and claim that these are the same bond. They are clearly different bonds, even if they started from the same seed.
The problem is you are limiting the tool to only the example list, and not considering the full scope of the tools you were given.
Again you missed the point entirely. To ask the questions that were asked means a basic understanding of how dragons reacts because of their alignments. Any one can read the basics of the MM. But. To have more details read the Draconomicon. That book is 150 pages about dragons. It is a treasure trove of information about dragons.
And then I answered. Yes I answered! What a shock! Did I mentioned a few things from the Draconomicon? Of course I did. An advice is not the end of the world. And you mixed things with alignment where questions were about red dragons (which are covered in the Draconomicon as you can guess). And to you I give the same advice. Read the draconomicon to know more about dragons in D&D. It will help you. I know it helped me.
But as
@Oofta often points out, Alignment is used because he doesn't want to read all those five paragraphs in the MM. So why are we suddenly saying an entire book of more lore is useful?
If more lore is more useful, then wouldn't getting rid of alignment and just using a few sentences of lore to give a more complete picture than two words. Honestly, you wouldn't even have to add anything. The current set up in the MM is more than enough. I've never felt the need to look at something's alignment when I've had their lore to read instead.