Alignment Charts

Shit; at this point I don't even think that it's /pol/'s fault anymore. I honestly think that whites are just openly racist paranoid ass holes now. Like, every white person I know now is way more open with admitting that they hate non-whites now.

The last generation that survived a nationalist war (in the west) is dead or very nearly dead.

It's about the right time for the pendulum to swing back towards nationalism, military posturing, racism, shouting, and people being dicks to other people. The last generation who lived through where that mentality got us isn't around anymore.

It's the 8 teams that are still left in the tournament.
Russia made it pretty clear from the beginning that they had no interest in actually winning games.

Live in literally any other country than a western one and you will see just how 'racist' white people are. From Mexico to Mali to Japan, none of these countries have a problem with open racism, white westerners have built the most open societies in history faggot.

>nationalism is mean!

>other political beliefs are pathologies!

Are you really this naive?

The thing that I was most afraid of was that we're going to obviously be the villain in the next World War with that mentality, but with the rise of a lot of nationalist movements in Europe, I fear there will be no war to reverse what's going on and there will be another few centuries with whole cultures placed in shackles just around the corner.

I fear that peace was never in the cards for humanity and we were always fated to wipe ourselves out.

I'm not really ascribing values to any of those things. It's just how the pendulum swings. Nationalism is, by definition, mean to outsiders though. That's kind of how it works. Hard to be superior to another nation without implying it's inferior.

Now, whether or not /that's/ a good thing is more or less the wrong question. It's just a thing.

And they seem to be tired of the notion of equality of all men. The only thing keeping countries from good old fashioned genocide is that everyone is economically in bed with one another.

This. Egalitarianism is an idiotic and irrational ideal.

But you are. You are saying 'shouting' with connotations of crass loudness, 'racism', etc and 'being a dick' are all connected, you clearly think this is bad.

Nationalism does not equal supremacy, nor does it require hostility to outsiders, the very way you structure this explanation seems to imply the nationalistic force is the aggressor and the outsider the victim.

It's not just 'a thing', you are advancing a narrative on politics and history.

Fresh OC

Probably the most retarded thread I've ever seen on Veeky Forums in the 4 years I've been here. Actually I haven't even seen something this stupid on /b/. Congrats.

Pretty much the what is Switzerland situation.

Incredibly Nationalistic but also non aggressive. Expansionism is not exclusive to Nationalism.

When has that ever stopped a genocide or forcible removal of undesirables? No, there simply is not one thing holding the west from genocide, that's ridiculous, weren't you just calling whites 'paranoid?'

The notion of equity does not mean what you think. They had a very different idea, for instance, 18 year olds are today considered equal in their ability to vote, when clearly this is not what was intended.

Your assumptions about what another group of people thinks seems to imply you have your own set of prejudices.

I think you and I agree, but possibly for different reasons.

Lurk moar

There's a natural aversion to politicians shouting their points that grew out of fascism.

It's no longer a taboo. All the people who remember are dead.

That's all.

Nationalism does require some notion of superiority. How are you going to differentiate yourself from those filthy Belgians if you aren't better /in some way/? You can't rally a nation if you acknowledge that your nation is universally shit at everything. It can be as nebulous as "smarter" or "better looking" or "better historical figures" or "more multicultural and friendly" or "superior potassium exports". Doesn't matter. You need to make some claim. Not even an aggressive one - you can have an entirely defensive nationalism - but you need to instill an idea that your nation is worth defending.

And that requires instilling a notion of superiority.

Sports and playful banter have worked for most first-world countries for decades, but it's kind of falling apart now.

Why, though? I've never quite understood why people abhor the idea of the equality of the human race. There's literally no reason for it, especially in a time period where it's technologically possible to provide for all of humanity.

We're not even a species that is structured around genetically obvious castes.

>I've never quite understood why people abhor the idea of the equality of the human race.

It's a beautiful ideal, and it'd be lovely if it was true. But it isn't. It isn't even a racial issue, but different groupings of people have developed different cultures that will always put them at odds with one another.

The only way you will ever see a genuinely equal society is if it's a monocultural one.

Good posts

Cancer

Man, remember when tabletops were about fantasy and fiction? Threads like this make me imagine that people play D&D campaigns about killing blacks and Jews without the intent of it being edgy.

This thread was cancer from the first post, let's face it.

/thread

You still have not argued that supremacy is necessary for nationalism.

If all you need to do is, as you say, advance the idea that your nation is worth protecting against others, this is something done often without any beliefs of supremacy, for instance, the man who protects his wallet does not need any belief of supremacy to do so.

You still have not proved supremacy is necessary for nationalism, you have instead opted for the strange notion that, you need a belief in supremacy for defense.

This pushes the claim of supremacy back a step, but I don't feel you have proven this point either.

Defending yourself, your property, and neighbors can all be done without a belief of the supremacy of any of the things protected.

All the will to defend shows is that the thing being protected is valuable, and thus 'property' or at least desirable, and likely scarce.

Enjoy

As was OP's intention for it to be.

You have to admit this this is a severe mis-characterization of the discourse in this thread.

No one is being uncivil, or advocating for dead blacks and jews.

Where do colors fall on the alignment chart for you?

Here's where they go for me.

This is an Alignment thread. We're all tumors here.

I've always thought yellow was a "good" color.

Switch LG with LE and make CG dark green and that'd be my choice.

Eerie.

I think Gygax would want the most offensive colors to be evil, you should be able to look at it and see the evil.

Lime green is probably NE

Maybe Grey for LN and white for TN.

Yeah, not sure why I feel purple as Lawful Good.

Maybe a combination of lavender and Caesar.

>Doctor Right not Lawful Neutral
Shit chart

Personally I feel it invokes hedonism, wine and rambunctious partying.

So I guess maybe I feel it to be closer to CN. Orange would work for LE maybe?

...

And in the page after this one, he kills Wonderman and pretends the other guy did it.

Can someone explain why each contry has this particular alignment to me, please?
I'm afraid my euro football-fu is weak.

LG yellow
NG white
CG green
LN dark blue
TN grey
CN brown
LE purple
NE black
CE red

But it's highly subjective.

How in the fuck are Jews not lawful evil? And why is ISIS lawful? That'd terrible and shit tier. I just want to let you know even though if you where intelligent enough to understand you wouldn't post such rot.

Lack of property laws didn't stop the Indians from warring with each other over territory for their entire history.

Sorry to interupt, but I thought I'd post an alignment chart.

...

if someone fix the chaotic good and neutral good parts, this isn't a bad table.

This.

The whole "no concept of land ownership" is complete and utter revisionist history hippy bullshit.

>Can someone explain why each contry has this particular alignment to me, please?
Seconding this. I'm really curious.

What's wrong with them?

While good characters can and often kill, killing is not their focus or something they should enjoy doing. It's sometimes necessary for the goals they want to achieve. So while a crusading paladin can smite evi and those who serve itl, and a chaotic good can kill the tyrant's minions or people who are oppressing other's freedom, that's not what define them. So if you have a very small, short space to write a definition for the 'good' side of allignment, it's poor form to use killing to describe them. This table has neutral good and chaotic good both be like "Whatever, i have a gun." Which, is more like a neutral policy. While i'd agree han solo represents chaotic good, the quote isnt the best one. And well, neutral good is just awful.

A good neutral good quote would be like "I just want to help people." disregarding if it is the lawful thing to do or not. And a good description would be "Doesn't care about following codes and laws but doesn't dislikes them either, just wants to pursue the most direct good to help those in need in the immediate future."

>germany flag colors all evil aligned

Ah. See that particular alignment chart is not designed to depict the ideal representation of each alignment.
It is intended to show how each alignment can work with opposed alignments.
LG let's pirates get away.
LN can work with other alignments as long as they stick to their own code.
LE doesn't break their word.
NE can find a reason to kill for good.
TN, well, is neutral.
CE can fight alongside others for a time without trouble.
CN is very adaptable.
NG can be willing to compromise for the betterment of the group.
And CG can get along with lawful and Evil alignments for a time just like Han does.

It's about how well each team played and what odds they beat to qualify.

i.e. Iceland beat England, Italy beat Spain, Wales beat N.Ireland

Wow..whover did this in /pol/ have no clue of actual alignment working.

The NG example of shooting a guard in the back is a reference to an actual instance where Sam Axe, a very Good character, had to do exactly that for the greater good.

>I honestly think that whites are just openly racist paranoid ass holes now.

Do you not see the irony of that statement?

That's anedoctal evidence. I know a lot of black people who are way more comfortable making broad statements about white people that are less than flattering than my white friends are comfortable doing with black people. And I know some of my white friends are racists but they just rather keep it to themselves more than the blacks.

But the whole thing is: White people are in positions of power in the west and developed countries, and so white people racism with non-whites is systemic and oppressive. Black people racism agaisnt whites in the US is annoying, at best, but it isn't systemic and certainly it won't be qualified as oppressive.

White is still the norm of western civilization.

...