Miser also implies starving to death, because not spending money if we go with your position, so.................maybe you're being overly narrow again.
Wrong. Giving a small bit of money to the poor is as little as possible if you have the ideal of having a soft spot for the poor. Your white room idea of miser is soundly rejected. Personality traits don't exist in a vacuum.
Nope, you are the one who isn't listening.
Starving to death is why the definition includes "as little as possible", because if you don't spend the money to get food, then you die. But giving money to the poor out of kindness is not "as little as possible" because it won't kill you to not give it.
And your soft spot for the poor sure is... limited. If he has a desire to help them, why not give more than a few coppers? If this is the only thing he spends money on, why not give more? Because his status as a miser seems to not matter when it comes to this point.
Sure it is. You know one is more than the other. How useful that is is debatable, but it is in fact more useful than not knowing at all.
I don't know anything except "More than a dollar" I don't know if it is a cent more or tens of dollars more or hundreds of dollars more. Again, all you seem to be saying is "More". But, you can't give any sort of specificity to that to make the case that you mean a small sliver instead of nearly equal consideration.
Nobody puts the desires of others before their own desires. Someone who is doing that is being selfish and following their own stronger desire to put others before their own lesser desires.
While I don't disagree with you philosophically, I do know that that is not how the game was written. The game is written with a much more traditional view of desires.
Only if we follow your flawed and incorrect definition of chaotic. I don't, so there is in fact quite a difference.
Your definition of chaotic seems to involve a crowd of people walking around a square. Sorry if I don't see how that isn't a flawed and incorrect definition compared to the one described in the books.
I quoted the oath. "Do no harm" isn't a part the current oath. Of course
@Oofta just showed how it's impossible to follow that oath and be an adventure, as even if you do nothing but heal your companions and allow them to do more harm, you are doing harm by proxy, which violates your oath.
In short, it's a worthless oath for D&D unless you use the modern version, which allows evil.
You think it is worthless as an ideal for adventurers. But that doesn't make it a worthless ideal. As I talked about later.
And it still certainly does not leave room for being a serial killer.
Yes, I know. What's your point?
You see, to not know, because you keep acting like the PHB bolding a single word somehow makes the rules for ideals that they can be a single word and not require a description like the rules state.
Again, just because what you have written on your sheet as a place holder might be a single word to save space, that doesn't mean that the actual ideal of the character is a single word. Ideals are not single words. You keep pointing to the PHB's very general examples and acting like those are fully written ideals. They are not. They are examples, and meant to be modified.
Why would ideals be limited to one narrow aspect of their background?
You just seemed confused about how a religious tradition could be written down under tradition, since there are so many types of traditions. I was pointing out that it was a religious tradtion for a character who a major part of their identity is being a member of a religion. Kind of like how a military boot camp might be important for a soldier, they focused on that particular type of tradition because the background was chosen to highlight the importance of their religion for the character.
It's not a hard ideal to live up to, it's literally impossible for a D&D adventurer to do it and not just be dead weight on everyone else.
So you say. But then, so are a lot of ideals, so I don't see why you want to go and make a big deal out of this one. Look at the Sage with "No Limits: Nothing should fetter the infinite possibility inherent in all existence" Do you think they can literally reach infinite knowledge? Being Impossible doesn't stop it from being an ideal.