What if alignments were a continuum and not mutually exclusive?

[Vahnavoi]

Sure. But even with as much as my player clearly considered Charisma to be a dump stat, and as much as I feel Bakugo could have been modeled off said lack of Charisma, even I recognize that opening such conversations with “you are evil” isn’t the best way to start such a conversation.

That borders on a complete non-sequitur to what I just said, as whether Charisma is or isn't a dump stat is not a question of alignment and nothing in or out the game demands a discussion on morality of such belief.

---

errr.... why would you expect anyone to read 1st edition ad&d rules?

For the same reason I'd expect people to read Moorcock, Poulson or Tolkien, or play original Super Mario Bros., or read a history book: because they are interesting and answer questions of why some things are the way they are today.

Old editions of D&D will stop being relevant once new editions stop recycling their trash.

why would you consider that as a prerequisite for talking about alignments?

I don't, but if you want to pitch a fix, it pays to know if that "fix" is already part of the basic rules of an existing version of the game.

I have read the 3.x rules, and that's all I did care to read. I didn't like them, I certainly have no intention of looking through other editions too. At my table we barely use them anyway.

"I didn't like one instruction manual, therefore, I have no intention of reading a different instruction manual to see if it explains something better. Like, I don't even use the instructions I did read."

That's equivalent to what you said. Do you see where you went wrong?

Wrong. Just because they were published somewhere in the 1st edition, it does not make them part of the rules. Just in the same way that class/race restrictions are not part of the rules even though they were printed at some point.

"Wrong. Being part of published rules of an existing edition of a game that you can buy, does not make something part of the rules. A rule that is disliked and changed by some player somewhere means that rule is forever revoked for all tables everywhere."

That's the equivalent of what you just said. Do you see where you went wrong?

Not that I ever really cared what the rules say on alignments. I care what the table decides to make with them.

Now, I can't help thinking we could have a better discussion without you acting snob and trying to talk down each participant

If you don't care about the rules, to the point that you've clearly ignored what the rules actually say, what makes you think you can improve on them?