Alignments and shit

>Churchill
>Good

>hitler not lawful

>stalin not only neutral

>ISHYGDDTT

>gaddafi chaotic evil

>libyia without gaddafi is a hellhole with no law

Epic meme

>hitler

>Gandhi

>Chaotic Good

nah bro

>Stalin not evil despite purge after purge after purge
>Hitler lawful despite planning a coup, using a paramilitary gang to violently suppress opposing factions in contravention of German law, then repeatedly breaking international law including agreements he, himself, had made once he managed to to threaten his way into power. Oh, and the Night of the Long Knives is in there somewhere.
Also, where the fuck do you see Hitler?

>hitler not lawful
Hitler consistently supported infighting between his underlings to avoid any of them becoming a thread to his power.
>stalin not only neutral
Stalin was a bureaucrat by heart, and hated infighting from his underlings.

...

>any world leader, ever
>anything but evil

I bet you honestly believe people seek political power because of their deep-seated desire to advance the greater good, don't you?

>pope being lawful

>he let knights and kings contest against each-other in wars

>he's never lived under a monarchy

>seek political power
>brought up from childhood to have it thrust upon them

Pick one.

one of the goals of the crusades was to unite knights and kings... under the pope's banner

This is the most blue-pilled shit Ive ever seen.
Kennedy and Nixion the only good ones

What is this from?

Obama he done ruined economy with his good natured thinking!
I love this, yeah I agree he was an incredibly bland president who is most lilely not gonna be videly remembered and he himself triued to change that by the end but he was in no way a crook.
Its like that guy who got labeled the worst president and is called a monster but was mosryly becsuse he was too nice of a guy. Shit simpsons made a joke about it.

Let millions starve in India.
Churchill was a complete and utter cunt.

...

What alignment would Prince Charles fall under? Not really into this 'roleplaying' or 'worldbuilding' stuff, I just want somewhere to air it out, really get some serious discussion going.

he was nothing but an egomanic who started a war that didn't need to be fought. Seriously, fuck that fat cunt. He also caused a famine in bangladesh by nicking their food.
Che should be chaotic good.

Chaotic neutral.
He clearly gives no shit for the common man but I think its just the inbreeding acting up. Hes a bit of a manchild too say the least too.

This has got to be about the dumbest shit alignment chart I have ever seen.

You must not spend much time on Veeky Forums then.

>who started a war that didn't need to be fought

No, he fucking didn't, and you've lost all rights to speak on the subject now.

World War II formally began when Germany invaded Poland and Danzig on 1 September 1939. This activated the British and French alliances with Poland, and in accordance with those alliances they declared war on 3 September.

HOWEVER, the British Prime Minister at the time was Neville Chamberlain, who had been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 and remained such until 10 May 1940.

Or in other words, the war was already going on for eight months before Churchill became Prime Minister; before that he was simply a Member of Parliament like any other.

I don't expect you to know the specific dates, but fven a casual knowledge of history would have let you know that Churchill wasn't Prime Minister at the time.

So you were wrong on two fronts:

1) Hitler started the war;
2) Even if you want to make some inane argument about how countries should not honor alliances, it wouldn't matter because Churchill was not the one who declared the United Kingdom's war against Germany.

TL;DR - fuck off back to /pol/, /int/, Veeky Forums, or whatever foul hole you crawled out of. But buy a fucking book before you do.

>Chaotic Good
>We can have a trial tomorrow, but we must have an execution today!
>Evidence is an artifact of bourgeois society
>Innocence proves nothing!
>Chaotic Good

What is that Gif from?

Not a clue, it's just in my folder.

Damnit, i know that actor and the line seems familiar.

VanossGaming and his buddies. All the images and quotes are collected from their various GTA V videos.

Most "Great" national leaders are neutral, because their loyalties are usually to their nation at the expense of all others. Rather, it is difficult to be a great national leader if you do not put the safety of your countrymen above all.

Some would also be considered "Evil." Individuals like Alexander the Great, whose actions persisted well after they provided any appreciable benefit to their people, should be considered Evil even if their actions were ultimately beneficial to their people.

I don't remember that scene specifically, but I'm guessing Breaking Bad.

...

This is a poorly worded post.

>should be considered Evil even if their actions were ultimately beneficial to their people
What sort of revisionist bullshit is this?
Alignment is all about intent, not results.

Can't be, he always wore glasses for that role.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZOmp3HpAGgM Found it.

>Nixon not good
>Obama, who has encouraged riots on multiple occasions, is the alignment that is based on respecting the Law over Morality
>any Communist anything but evil
>Kennedy Neutral when he lived a wild life

What in fug?

...

I don't recall Obama encouraging riots, and he is a lawyer, and Nixon was a criminal, and thus not lawful, or good, Kennedy was a good man who disrespected social mores but took them into account thus neutral good.

World leaders are anywhere from neutral to evil, by necessity. Some monarchs are rare exceptions, but they quickly fall either in alignment or from power.

that's so american it's not even funny

But that's what I just said? Someone with most likely egotistical or selfish ambitions such as Alexander should still be considered evil even if his actions benefited hellenic culture.

Yeah, because they'd probably just say "Asian women are robbing me!", or better yet just "I'm being robbed!" or "Robber!"

this is the best one

>Gandhi, who accepted all sentences levied upon him for peaceful protests, is chaotic
I would question whether he would be good (he only aspired to help Indians and all) but I definitely don't think he's chaotic. He's lawful.

>I don't recall Obama encouraging riots
Pay more attention. From sending warm clothing so OWS could last the winter, to "my son would have looked like Trayvon," to all the "police are evil," "we understand the frustration of the cop killers" BS, he went out of his way to destabilize the nation and upset domestic tranquility.

OWS? and that Trayvon remark is a show of sympathy for his family's loss not a call to arms, the "police are evil" i want proof, because the vast majority are in fact evil, lawful yes but at best neutral lawful good cops are the exception not the rule. ANd i understand the frustration of the cop killers too, but i don't agree with their actions and that's exactly what he said, it's not hard to understand why people want to kill cops, cops fuck people lives up by putting innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, or putting good people in jail when the thing they did while illegal was not immoral.

I'm an American. It's not funny to us, either.

>because the vast majority are in fact evil
source?
>when the thing they did while illegal was not immoral
The thing to blame in that situation is the law, not the cop whose job is to enforce the law, not interpret it.

Personal experience in that only one police officer I've ever met treated me like a human being and all the rest just looked at me like i was less than them less than human, maybe that's just me though, but consider also how most people in the US dislike the police, it isn't because they're good men doing their jobs I can tell you that we may need them for society to function doesn't mean they're a good thing. Yeah i hate the law but a lot of things are in fact up to the officer, it's actually in the law of at least my state PA, officers discretion, I think it's called they rarely exercise that right to let people go.

>being good means being selfless, as opposed to being benevolent
>you can't be both ambitious and compassionate

Get a look at this faggot.

I'm American and I've never met anyone who hates the police. Try moving out of black or Mexican areas.

>the vast majority of the only thing between you and being murdered are evil

Are you an ancap? A libertarian? An outright leftie?

I live in a 99% white, so nice straw-manning, and they aren't the only thing, I have hands, I can get a gun and I have knives, I am what you'd call a democratic socialist, I hate SJW's and the vast majority of so-called feminists, want a health care and education system like Canada, the UK, and so many other countries do, one of the things my life has taught me is never to trust someone who enforces the law and can lie to you.

>Gandhi
>Chaotic good

>>Gandhi, who accepted all sentences levied upon him for peaceful protests, is chaotic
He was civil while doing so, but he was subverting authority, which is what chaotic entails. I kind of see the argument both ways though.

>Personal experience in that only one police officer I've ever met treated me like a human being and all the rest just looked at me like i was less than them less than human
I mean, I don't think looking at you funny qualifies as evil, it's rude but not much else.

>consider also how most people in the US dislike the police, it isn't because they're good men doing their jobs I can tell you that
I dunno, ever seen Zootopia? People dislike being inconvenienced, and unfortunately for cops, the vast majority of police interactions with the public are via inconveniencing people. In large cities this problem is exacerbated, with more onlookers to someone getting inconvenienced, and crime still running rampant. The police are a lot more hated in cities as a result.

You gonna try to make this a legit discussion when you post that picture? it's basically an English propagandists wet dream.

No I know that alone doesn't it's just dirty looks but what do you call it when you aren't under arrest and yet a cop has you in handcuffs and chains you to the floor of the interrogation room?

One of the best aligment charts ever done.

Without being read your rights btw.

Isn't it a fad for Asian girls to gang up on and brutally beat the shit out of random men?

And didn't white people genocide the entirety of the Americas, Australia, and most of Africa?

Didn't Muslims invent the scientific method, establish cleanliness as healthy world wide (except in europe lolooloo) and inspire the European Renaissance?

Man, white people are bad at history.

>chains you to the floor of the interrogation room

>I have hands
>and I have lives
>democratic socialist
>want a health care and education system like the UK/Canada

>I hate the law

>the vast majority are evil

Jesus Christ, I've never met someone so aggressively disconnected from reality. You are a walking /pol/ meme.

>the police are evil
>cops fuck people lives up
Alright motherfucker, listen here.

You voluntarily enlist in a job with absolute garbage pay.

You go through sizable amounts of physical training and special education. Your education includes getting shot with a taser and hit with pepper spray because that's the only way you're allowed to carry them, and you can't get by without carrying them.

Then, assuming you aren't stuck behind a desk for the next 40 years, you have to wake up every day and go out, either on foot or in a car.

If you're in a car and not simply "on patrol", your job is probably to wait until you see someone driving dangerously and get them off the road. Meaning you will likely have to follow them for at least some distance. If they're speeding? Drunk as fuck? Armed? So what, you still have to follow them and force them to pull over, at which point you will typically go over to their car, while having no idea what shit they might have been smoking or whether they've got a fucking gun.

Otherwise, you're responding to crimes. Quite often, if you're called to assist, it's going to be something violent and there will likely be guns involved.

If you're alone, you have absolutely no guarantee of safety, especially in nonwhite areas where you can be killed for simply existing.

Then you hear that several guys doing the same job as you over in Dallas get shot, some to death, for trying to ensure that a "peaceful protest" doesn't become an out and out riot like it did in fucking Ferguson or Baltimore or wherever, since another guy doing your job cracked under the stress and made a mistake.

Then the fucking President himself, the highest authority in the country and arguably the world, gets on national TV and says that he "understands the frustration" of the guy who killed the guys that share a profession with you for doing the same job you do.

But no, the vast majority of cops are evil.

Fuck you.

Either shit bait or a shit false flag.
>And didn't white people genocide the entirety of the Americas, Australia, and most of Africa?
Last time I checked there were still natives following native cultures in all those places.
>Didn't Muslims invent the scientific method
They believed in systematic, empirical investigation, which indeed is a part of the scientific method. But so did the Indians and the Classical Europeans under individuals such as Galen. The ultimate inventors and synthesizers of the Scientific Method was Europe, even if muslims played an integral role in preserving and advancing knowledge left over from the classical world in the West's absence.
>establish cleanliness as healthy world wide
The Native Americans and Japanese did not develop personal hygiene habits from the Muslims, no.
>and inspire the European Renaissance?
No more than the Mongols inspired the rise of the Ottomans by destroying the Abbasids.

>Isn't it a fad for Asian girls to gang up on and brutally beat the shit out of random men?
I haven't heard of this, but I'm willing to accept it's possible.

You call it a you obey the cop now and sue the pants off of him later for the many, many violations of protocol.

Watch this video: youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g
I know, I know, it's Fox News, and the test they set up is slightly biased, but bear with me here.

Cops do fuck people's lives up.

It's just most people are too chickenshit to admit that they deserve it, and that they were fucking up their own lives anyway before the cops showed up to do their part.

>calls white people bad at history after literally making shit up
top zozzle little refugee

Yeah it's called a violation of my civil rights, he did so without informing me of either my rights or whether or not I was under arrest, if I had been under arrest it wouldn't have been a violation of my rights. When it's immoral I hate the law, there are many situations that I could be justified in killing someone, as well as morally required to do, to save another life, and yet if I do I run the risk of going to jail for anywhere from 20 years to life.
I'm aware it's voluntary

I know about their training, i'd have to be stupid not to.

Few cops unless they're injured or of sufficient rank get "desk jobs".

I know it's dangerous, but I've met many cops who show no respect to me or my friends. When they act like that they don't deserve respect, so I revoke mine from them. Then when they act like they require respect from me because they chose a dangerous career, no fuck you. I respect everyone until they disrespect me once you do so you lose the right to my respect.

How can you not understand they're frustration at least on an intellectual level? the President did his level fucking best to diffuse the situation he said he didn't agree with their methods, and that they would of course feel the full penalty of the law, he didn't say or even imply "go out, riot, kill more cops" that's pure right wing news bullshit. I feel empathy for those cops in Dallas, because they were trying to ensure a protest remained peaceful and failed, through no fault of their own I'm sure, they failed probably because black people in this country are sometimes the bottom of the fucking scum barrel,that doesn't mean their frustrations don't have meaning or merit.
I've watched that before, no more enlightening than any video featuring part of police training. as for my situation I was going to let it go I wasn't aware they were pursuing charges until two years later, had I called the ACLU when it happened that wouldn't have happened but I waited too long.

>my butt hurts
okay

>called the ACLU
>I am justified killing someone

This is fucking hilarious. Keep going, holy shit.

instead of cherry picking and calling bait, if you're one of the people I responded to discuss my points, if not shut the fuck up.

I think you're talking about assaulting the homeless? That's not Asian-specific nor girls-specific, it's a fad with adolescents everywhere.

White people weren't all that friendly with their colonizees, no. The "genocide", however, was the spread of disease to the Americas and Australia, and entirely out of anyone's control (at the time, because they didn't know). No epidemics spread from Europe to Africa as far as I know.

Muslims preserved a lot of things from the Romans while the west died for about a millennium, and they did do a lot of good things in their heyday. They did none of the things you said, however. Cleanliness independently arose in many locations, and even those filthy, filthy mudhut Europeans knew that bad smells weren't healthy and you got rid of bad smells via bathing.

>shut the fuck up
>don't give me a reply if you weren't already talking to me

Now why do you think anything you said entitles you to a serious response? You are like a monkey banging on a keyboard.

>get arrested
>pissed off at cops
>do nothing if you felt you were wronged
Why do people have no fucking patience for the law? The law works when you have patience. If you did nothing, than you can expect no positive change. You lost the chance to make a difference. Now you support people who try to make a chance at change, but through the wrong channel.

The more you report, the more bad cops get weeded out. Less bad cops, more good cops

also
>most cops are evil
People that believe this have zero experience with police. They just watch the news and live in the suburbs. Get outside more and you may see the good they really do for this world.

>"we understand the frustration of the cop killers" BS
>Then the fucking President himself, the highest authority in the country and arguably the world, gets on national TV and says that he "understands the frustration" of the guy who killed the guys that share a profession with you for doing the same job you do.

If you're trying to negotiate with or persuade an unstable individual, you generally avoid calling them "unstable", regardless of it being true. Usually, you show sympathy to get them to listen to you. Obama's taking that logic and applying it to a loosely-defined group of people.

Also, why is trying to understand and be diplomatic with criminals the same as being dismissive of the police? I agree that Obama should have been more explicit in decrying the cop killings, but expressing sympathy for a criminal is not the same as turning your back on the police.

I usually don't watch speeches, and I was more interested in the events surrounding the protests at the time. When did Obama explicitly call the police evil or say that cop-killing was in any way okay? When did he imply either of these things?

>expressing sympathy for a criminal
This is the mistake you make. You disregard the victims and place more emphasis on the criminals. Obama knows what he was doing.

This by far has to be the most accurate alignment chart to date

I'm not one of the people depicted in your little drawing, excellent straw-man.
I did lose my chance because my family told me to let it be, and at the time I was young and didn't know who to call, then were outraged when the cops and DA brought up charges when had I reported and known to report to the ACLU like my first instinct was, it wouldn't have happened, I have patience with the Law, and my whole point was that I wasn't arrested the cop who handcuffed me did not say I was under arrest and failed to Mirandize me immediately and didn't do so before questioning me. I was hot and thirsty and had been through a rather adrenaline pumping situation involving a gun being fired in my general direction, unable to think straight.

>all he can do is scream strawman
do you often visit r/atheism as well

>I was hot and thirsty and had been through a rather adrenaline pumping situation involving a gun being fired in my general direction, unable to think straight
> whole point was that I wasn't arrested the cop who handcuffed me did not say I was under arrest and failed to Mirandize me immediately

Reading too much liberal propaganda I see. He might have said it and you did not hear it. Also, in situations of extreme distress, like guns being fired off, Miranda rights don't need to be read immediately. Go back to watching sovereign citizen YouTube videos.

P.S. if this is not bait, for real: DON'T LET SHIT GO! If I have learned anything in life, it is that just "letting things go" is a bad choice. Fuck people if they with think its "annoying," shit should be done right or not done at all. People who don't have patience with fuck up in life. Those who do and see things to the end will come out on top, even if you have to step on toes to get there.

>When it's immoral I hate the law, there are many situations that I could be justified in killing someone, as well as morally required to do, to save another life, and yet if I do I run the risk of going to jail for anywhere from 20 years to life.
I'm not too familiar with the law myself, but I believe killing in self-defense or the defense of others is either not a sentence at all or much less than murder. I can't imagine any other scenario where killing is justified or morally required.

>I know it's dangerous, but I've met many cops who show no respect to me or my friends. When they act like that they don't deserve respect, so I revoke mine from them. Then when they act like they require respect from me because they chose a dangerous career, no fuck you.
I very much doubt the ones acting like the former and the ones acting like the latter are the same cops. Unless these cops are waltzing along, tyrannizing you and your friends, then saying "what? Don't you show any disrespect, boy, we chose a dangerous career!" or something. So they are not at all the same cops.

Please punctuate your sentences properly, it takes time to interpret each of your posts.

You are in fact strawmanning him, at least implicitly by posting that image.

Different user here

Self-Defence depends on the country. United States has some of the better ones

In the United states, if a threat is made upon your life, you can do everything in your power to stop the threat. Then you stop. That's the law, for the most part.

No I've never been there, sorry. it honestly doen't appeal to me.
Nope he did not, I remember everything that was said that day he did not Mirandize me and just before they let me go, which was 4 or 5 hours later, they then did the whole please sign this it says you understand your rights, I didn't sign it. I can no longer do something about it but I've learned from the situation, that if they violate your rights you call someone. thank you user for the advice.
Sorry about the punctuation, I've always had trouble with it. I'm working on improving it.

I can imagine it seeming like he gave more emphasis to criminals because that story sells more newspapers, but did he really disregard the victims? Like I said, I haven't watched any of the speeches. Did Obama neglect to offer condolences or honor the killed police officers? I find it hard to believe that he never once did that. Is there an article or news video calling him out on it?

Shouldn't it be possible for someone who's supposed to be outside of the conflict to express sympathy for a criminal without diminishing the support and recompense given to the victim? I'm a STEMfag, so I don't know much about civics or philosophy, but I don't think justice is a zero-sum game. If it were, why would we make any attempt at all to rehabilitate criminals instead of doing the whole "Eye for an eye" thing?

> Get out of here, STALKER!

>he was nothing but an egomanic who started a war that didn't need to be fought.
>Churchill started WWII

You're gunna need to run this one by me again.

Or did I just imagine that WWII started when Hitler invaded Poland?

>nogla
>fuckboy
Nogla's just the best. I'd say chaotic neutral, but the chaotic part is just bubbling-fumbling idiocy.

Let's be honest, WWII started when the Jewish population of germany started a rebellion ~1915.

You've been listening to too much Nazi propaganda.

Gandhi is lawful good, principled man who bettered his nation and society through nonviolent means.
Churchill is lawful neutral, he allowed millions to starve in India to feed troops for the war effort (Neutral), stroked his own ego and wanted prestige for himself (Evil), but fought to ensure his nation's freedom (Good).
Che's a difficult question, so I think you have him right though with the addition that he definitely has shades of evil due to massacring civilians.
I could see Obama as Lawful Neutral as I'm sure his time in office has been a pretty prestige-driven effort, but he has also tried his best to help our nation.
I feel like Jimmy would be Neutral Good, though more in the 'dammit, he's trying, man' sort of way.
Not sure who LE is, mind telling?
Nixon is... Yeah, I can see that just fine.
Chaotic Evil is 100% correct.

That's what you call, a joke.
It was an actual civil war, though.