You mean the example text that is not what people actually write on their sheets?
And, are you seriously trying to tell me that something like this "Independence. I am a free spirit—no one tells me what to do." Requires the word Chaotic next to it to tell me they don't like authority? I'm sorry, I figured the idea of being a free spirit and the dislike towards authority told me that pretty clearly. But I guess if it said "Good" that would make the character not chaotic?
? 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)
1) So... a specific ideal beats your general point that alignment changes two identical ideals into something different. You are even admitting that that ideal is evil, therefore it is a different ideal than the version you wrote for the Good character.
2) Which was the point.
3) The point was that your claim fell apart on its first step, because the ideal that the evil character had, was not identical to the ideal of the good character, when you wrote out what the ideal ACTUALLY was.
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.
Of course you can't infer anything about it. That was the point. Just like you can't really infer anything from "My King" how is that more descriptive than "My Journal"? Because Kings are people instead of objects? So what? I could easily see a character like Jane writing down "Vera" as there bond. So objects are completely valid.
And this is, again, where your point falls apart. You want to claim that alignment filled in the gaps, it told you what kind of relationship the character has with their king, but it can't tell me what kind of relationship a character has with their sword.
Heck, I have a "good aligned" character whose Bond is "Father Knew Best" and unless you know about his father, you couldn't use that information to tell me anything about his bond. Alignment doesn't tell me anything about that. Knowing the relationship, you know, THE BOND, does. Just because we write it in a short hand doesn't mean that we didn't clarify and talk about the rest of it.
And no, alignment doesn't work that way. Because alignment is general. At best. Because alignment is supposed to apply equally to kings, paupers, demons and angels. But "my relationship with my father" by its very presence must be specific.
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.
This isn't nitpicking. This is your argument is fundamentally flawed. I don't know why you keep defending it, it does not work.
Saying "I defend the weak" is an unclear statement, because it could be evil because you mean "the weak" as in the citizens of your country/city/ect and "defend" means "pre-emptively attack" is ludicrous, because no one would take that statement to mean that.
You are twisting things until they snap in half, then declaring that because you used alignment to tape it back together that alignment is a necessary component. And it is not.
Yes it was nitpicking, as usual and my argument was not flawed. You make it appear so through twisting the meaning while I make it worthwhile doing the same. If you can do it, why can't I? And the funny thing is, I did not twist the words, or their meaning. It how the evil character sees himself as a good guy for protecting the weak by slaying every opponents to his king. An opponent is not a weak, it is a foe. It changes a lot in the evil character's mind. But you refuse to admit even this single bit as it would be conceding that my position is legitimate.
I'm not
@pemerton , but if "I know how a CE dragon will act" and your first answer is "I suggest you go read an entirely seperate book to increase your understanding of dragons" then I think you are immediately proving that no, you don't know how a CE dragon will act. Because you need to have read the Draconomicon first. And then you need to determine if it is looking for a mate, and there are all these other things that you need to know.
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.
So... CE told you they were selfish and lacked empathy? Cool... did the Draconomicon just happen to mention that? I do note that the MM tells us a lot of that... so... Why did we need CE to tell us things we already knew from the Draconomicon?
Nope, missed the point entirely. Again...
The draconomicon tells about... guess what... Dragons, their PoV, their habits, goals and even their religions. It also talks about their anatomy. The questions were about dragon's habits which are not the goal of this thread. So I pointed a book that holds the answers to these questions. I did gave some hints so that our good friend has some insight about what he will find in the book. Nothing more, nothing less. What is your gripe with that post? That I answered correctly or what?
