Why might two good-aligned nations go to war against each other?

Good nations can do non-good acts, if both need X to survive, it won't be good to go to war to get X before the other side can get it, but it'll be neutral, but that's fine cause good people can do neutral acts.

Greed

one loves dfc the other loves cowtits

differing ideas of right and wrong

> one loves dfc
But OP said both are good, and that one clearly isn't.

Lewds.

Land and resources, same as any other war. Good does not always encompass reasonable as part of it's definition. Especially if there's are resource both are short of and the available resources are not sufficient for both.

A diplomatic incident that gets blown completely out of proportion. The fighting escalates to the point that neither side wants to back down. But eventually it reaches the point that they've been fighting for so long that neither side accurately remembers why they hate each other so much.

At what point does a nation qualify as good aligned? Even when prosperous and just it's hard to see a nation in its entirety as better than neutral.

I was going to complain about this too but then I realized it's as simple as having all the individual people in charge being good aligned, and having the majority of the populace being on board with it and not fomenting rebellion for the glory of Darkbad Evilnight or anything

A nation is not a person and can't be good, evil, or anything. So the alignment of a nation is derived from the people who make up that nation, especially rulers and law enforcers, simple as that

Lack of resources.

The environment suffered a catastrophe and even if they shared their wouldnt be enough

Racism.
I mean, you can still be a good people but harbour some hateful feelings towards an, in your opinion, inferior race you consider wanting. Right?
Like Japanese people do.

Cascading alliances, Changing conditions, Conflicting goals, etc.

This is the most straightforward answer: the majority of its citizens are good aligned. Though interestingly, this would mean that its alignment would drop if it say, attempted to take in a bunch of neutral refuges.

This

How the fuck, venice.

>WW1
>any good-aligned nations

the only exception is the Ottomans who literally did nothing wrong

Just in process to perfect the perfect Italian war strategy of switching sides.

So meta.

Everyone else got pulled into the war before they knew how fucked up it would be, and by the time they realized how awful modern industrial war was they were knee deep and unable to back out.

But not the Ottomans, they looked on from the sidelines for the first few months, they were able to see what a stupid idea the whole thing was, and they said "yeah, it's horrible and bloody and disgustingly pointless, BUT LET'S JUMP IN ANYWAY."

And when the Ottoman people didn't want a war, their leaders staged a literal false flag attack in order to provoke Russia into attacking the Ottomans and thus giving them an excuse to go to war.

And then they decided to march over the Caucasus to invade Russia, during the winter, in only their summer uniforms.

And by the end of the war, they had lost more than 20% of their entire population.

Land, Honor, Religion, basically any reason any nation has gone to war with another nation.

Religion's been said a few times but I think it's the main one here, especially if they even follow different pantheons

This , Different approach what is the right way.
Like a demon boy who will be the destroyer of everything. One faction thinks he should be killed. The other that you can teach him to be good.

you know when t-800 fought the police in T2?
one wanted to stop the genocide of man, the other wanted to stop what seemed to be a terrorist holding a minigun

misunderstandings and failure to communicate snowballing into conflict is often a cause for trouble between people

user, GOOD aligned nations. Not Stupid Evil nations

>Why might two good-aligned nations go to war against each other?
Breast envy.

...

>Skub
disgusting. everyone knows skub gives you cancer

Jews

Shut the fuck up, Skub is amazing. Fucking anti skubbers are the worst, man.

>if we conquer we can do X for the greater good!
>if we conquer we can do Y for the greater good!

one can do many things while still being "good" by dnd morality

Disagrement on what the actual good action are.
Say one believes the other is evil because they kill all evil they come across and the other thinks the other is evil because they are an elite republic and the other still have a monarch.

I mean shit, vietnam was started publicly because a country far out in the world had different political views and were therefor EVIL.

>ELVES

The destruction of their empire also indirectly led to the political climate of today. Good job dying, Ottomans.

a 3rd not so good nation?

Someone's convinced that the other country is evil and they are absolutely convinced of it.

In order to keep its alignment, the good nation has strict immigration policies and neutrals are looked down upon as shifty and untrustworthy souls who are the cause of most crimes, since naturally they're the one with the least moral inhibitions.

I mean, I'd say something about beating women and them being second class citizen but that was pretty common back then.

Well the otto's were still doing it hardcore.

Nation A(good) is allied with poor country C.
Nation B(good) is allied with poor country D.
Nation E(good) is underwriting the neutrality of an emerging border nation F between C&D.

C attempted to retake F, believing that F's existence is a plot by D to undermine them. E begins to attack C to fulfill the alliance. A & E engage in combat. D seizes the opportunity to take F and C land. E attacks D since they are attacking F as well, B is drawn into the war.

Now you have literally 5 "good" aligned nations drawn into a war.

Kind of makes you wonder what shit would have been like if East Roman Empire had not fallen.

>80% of the thread never read Book of Exalted Deeds

>Ottomans who literally did nothing wrong
The guys who put genocide into practice even before Russians and Germans?

And that's good.
The Book of Exalted Deeds is by far, by far, the worst book in the entire D&D catalog.

>Russians
Remind me who we genocided again?

The conflict that will end the world.

Glorious cowtits will prevail!

Armenians?
Are you still seriously denying it?

>Armenians
What? Ottomans did it.

The Holodomor of Ukraine.

You can blame the Crusaders for that.

That wasn't a genocide. What pisses me off more is Western propaganda doesn't mention the scale of famine and many other regions in the south it affected.

>East Roman Empire had not fallen
It wouldn't fall without 4th Crusade help

Deus... vult?

If a nation is so good-aligned how can evil be distinguished? If two good-aligned nations meet it seems war will escilate out of the nessesity to churn out the bad subtleties in one another.

Both believe it is the right thing to do

This looks like it needs to be remade in comic form, except with cute girls playing the roles of each faction.

Venisu-tan is a fucking bitch.

>The intentional diversion of food from a famine affected region done with intent to cause death by said famine because the people belonged to a different cultural group is not an intentional act of genocide

Russians are bigger idiots than the Turks when it comes to accepting the fact that their country did bad things in the past.

It would have anyway. The Fourth Crusade was what happened when they decided to play Byzantine politics with westerners. Everything that happened followed a logical chain of events that began with not paying the Franks and Venetians what they needed to actually continue the crusade, that was promised to them in return for helping the Emperor secure the throne.

The moral of the story is pay your fucking mercenaries. It was the medieval equalivant of someone repossessing your house. The only thing that makes it noteworthy is how they where actually able to pull it off, and the facts that they still cry about it.

>The intentional diversion of food from a famine affected region done with intent to cause death by said famine
That's a lot of made up bullshit. You dumb fucker still forget and doesn't care about other famine strucked regions which Ukraine as the most fertile region was supposed to supply in such situations. Westerners are the biggest idiots when it comes to accepting the fact that their country did bad things in the past and they are dumb brainwashed fucks manipulated by propaganda and narrative.

>Venetians what they needed to actually continue the crusade
user, do you know about history between Venetians and Byzantines? Venetians wanted them dead and betrayed on several occassions. Just to point you in the right direction, Byzantium was one of the key trade points in Asian trade.

France and the Duchy of Ferrara are the only true BFFs.

Look up the story of the Fourth Crusade some time.
Venice plays everyone.

'Good aligned' is a fucking moronic, nonsensical concept, especially when you apply it to an entire NATION, which is led by at least a small cadre of separate individuals that are constantly shifting due to political demand (yes, even in a monarchy of immortal beings). What you think is 'good' is not an objective truth.

at least we can swallow the bitter pill that our country is responsible for genocide, Ivan

So you are saying, that for this entire time, humans have been stupid evil aligned?

I can hear it now
>ITS JUST A PRANK, MAN
>PLEASE DON'T PRESS CHARGES

>The intentional diversion of food from a famine affected region done with intent to cause death by said famine because the people belonged to a different cultural group
Never happened.

Yes, you swallow. We on other hand don't blame ourselves for the crimes we didn't commit.

Don't be patronizing when you don't know what you're talking about. The Venetian economy was completely tied up in getting the French crusaders on to their next destination. Unless they made back their promised payment in loot and land, they stood to take massive losses. They had a vested economic interest in seeing the crusade pay out. I'm not going to pretend they where doing the crusade because GOD WILLS IT, they had money in it. The Byzantines screwing them out of money they needed to actually get to the crusade just gave them an excellent reason to beat the snot of them and take over, a reason that was more than justified considering the context. Read Robert de Clari's account of the crusade, he was actually there and does a good job of showing how the chain of events snowballed into what they did. For some further reading, Enrico Dandolo and the Rise of Venice by Madden has the entire latter 4th of the book dedicated to the crusade and Latin Empire, that's a pretty interesting read.

People need to stop acting like the big bad canal jews destroyed something great, the Emperor pulled them into Byzantine political conflicts, and then decided to treat them like a party of mercenaries rather than the nation of Venice.

>The old "Vatnik thinks the Holodomor didn't happen because westerners do bad things and we don't do bad things and shut up"

Okay. My country did bad things. Your country did bad things. None of us are personally responsible unless we try to deny that the bad things happen. Which you are despite the overwhelming consensus to the contrary.

Oh, it's you again

Great counterargument.

Why has this thread turned into /pol/?

>the old "Westerner believes in Holodomor and other fantasies which have never been accepted by UN or any reliable source but hey it fits the narrative"
My country certainly didn't do THAT thing you are blaiming us for.

Because it's relevant for the topic?

Not an argument :^)

It's not relevant anymore. It might have been at the start, now the topic is "Deny my country's crimes" or some other inane shit.

Who did they think I was?

>implying

How did they come from Chaotic Evil masters of colonial nightmares to good guys?

That's the scary thing. They didn't, they just tricked us into thinking they where.

Well I mean, the Congo Free State was the personal property of Leopold II, so it didn't have much connection to the Belgian State (I think).
So the old bastard was the driving force of all the shit in the region, so when he kicked it things started to get better.

Also Albert was just a really cool guy in general. He and his Elizabeth actually really loved each other, and they'd go on adventures together off in the countryside.
First European monarch to visit America too, he was.

>good aligned nation
>implying such a thing is possible by commonly accepted standards

disagreement on what is good
same as real life.

Every joke you have ever heard about jews being greedy is true of Venice, they were the greediest most back stabbing awful Plutarchy of a country, built upon usury and greed.

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a salty Greek.

Individuals vary widely in moral and ethical matters.

Nations are interested in self-preservation, at best.

First Independence, then Latin Empire 2. Mark your calendar, because the Canals demand gold.

Faerun has each country listed with general alignments. That doesn't mean everyone in a country is that alignment, but the leaders usually are, as well as the majority of the population.

That leads to most countries being neutral, a scarce few good, and there are even a handful of evil countries, like Thay, which is a country ruled by evil wizards seeking world domination through economic manipulation and carefully-worded treaties.

In settings like these, good IS an objectivr truth, at least as far as the core components are concerned, and if your country is exploiting non-wizards in order to finance a plan to subjugate the world under the rule of a group of immoral wizards lead by a disguised lich seeking to turn the entire world undead, I think it's fair to call the country evil.

Stop treating them as good.

>Venice is too strong. France, come help us!
>France is too strong. Venice, come help us!
>A Franco-Venetian alliance?
>Guys stop
>Guys?
>Stop hitting Switzerland, he's already neutral!