OK, what traditional gaming alignments, e.g., LG, N, CN, etc., would you apply to the various US political parties and candidates and why (in gaming terms)?
In service,
Rich
Go to The original Dr. Games' Site.
|
I dunno about the US parties, but I would label the Canadian Rhinocerous party as CG. An entire (completely valid) party based on satire and humour to poke fun at other parties? Claiming that they'll repeal the laws of gravity? paving the bay of Fundy to create the world's largest parking lot? awesome. I'd vote for them if they were still around.
Sadly, the NeoRhino.ca party is not as funny and they take themselves much more seriously, therefore more of a CN sorta thing. Not gonna vote for them. Not worth it.
Although I don't know how many actual parties that intend to be serious can be called anything other then Lawful, and if your partie isn't Good, then you're in trouble. assuming that the Party wants to abide by a set of laws (or even create them), and it has the best interest of the people at heart then it's LG by default.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I dunno about the US parties, but I would label the Canadian Rhinocerous party as CG. An entire (completely valid) party based on satire and humour to poke fun at other parties? Claiming that they'll repeal the laws of gravity? paving the bay of Fundy to create the world's largest parking lot? awesome. I'd voth for them if they were still around.
What?!?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Repealing gravity would result in the death and destruction of everyone on the planet. How is that good?
Let's get this flamewar started!
|
|
I dunno about the US parties, but I would label the Canadian Rhinocerous party as CG. An entire (completely valid) party based on satire and humour to poke fun at other parties? Claiming that they'll repeal the laws of gravity? paving the bay of Fundy to create the world's largest parking lot? awesome. I'd voth for them if they were still around.
What?!?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Repealing gravity would result in the death and destruction of everyone on the planet. How is that good?
** spoiler omitted **
although they also wanted to abolish the environment since it's too hard to take care of. see, best interest of both people and the environment at the same time. DoubleThink at its finest!
|
|
Um you realize you just doused yourself in gasoline and you're asking for a cigarette right?
Are you referring to me or the OP? because if it's me, then I say bring on the blowtorch. if it's the OP, then I just happen to know where there's a blowtorch.
Incidently, the title of the thread says that it's supposed to be silly. so it'll be at least 6 more posts until someone gets offended.
Also, it should be rather obvious that all of the posts made in this thread shuold be a joke. or at least mine are. Other then the wanting to vote Rhino. That much is true.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I think the rhino party would be CN. Now, the reform party was LN at best and perhaps even LE. Wraps self in flame-retardant blanket.
"Umm ... inflammable means 'won't burn', right?"
EDIT: I'm referring to the Reform Party of Canada. Not the Reform Party of the United States.
|
|
I think the rhino party would be CN. Now, the reform party was LN at best and perhaps even LE. Wraps self in flame-retardant blanket.
"Umm ... inflammable means 'won't burn', right?"
EDIT: I'm referring to the Reform Party of Canada. Not the Reform Party of the United States.
"They then promised outlandishly impossible schemes designed to amuse and entertain the voting public."
I dunno. the whole point of the Rhino party was to make people laugh at a rather dour subject (politics). if providing joy and humour is N, then I don't wanna be G.
I also agree with your assessment of the Reform party.
Democratic Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Republican Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Conservative Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Liberal Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
New Democratic Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Bloc Quebecois = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Marijuana Party = chaotic neutral
Did I miss any? The Christian Heritage Party? The Natural Law Party? Action Democratique?
|
|
small differance: if you were going for parties represented in the house of commons, then you were looking for the green party, not the Marijuana party.
the following is a list of valid Canadian political parties recognized by elections Canada, but that aren't represented in the HoC:
and for the american ones, you missed Libertarian and Constitution. You got green though, and I assume it works for both countries.
|
|
Um you realize you just doused yourself in gasoline and you're asking for a cigarette right?Are you referring to me or the OP? because if it's me, then I say bring on the blowtorch. if it's the OP, then I just happen to know where there's a blowtorch.
Incidently, the title of the thread says that it's supposed to be silly. so it'll be at least 6 more posts until someone gets offended.
Also, it should be rather obvious that all of the posts made in this thread shuold be a joke. or at least mine are. Other then the wanting to vote Rhino. That much is true.
That'd be the OP.
|
|
Democratic Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Republican Party = neutral (w/ lawful tendencies)
Personally, I'd call both straight-up Lawful Neutral. All either party seems to care about is getting elected and implementing their agenda (true - that could be said about many parties, or rather, politicians), which would require loads and loads of new legislation and government spending. While I don't think either is truly trying to screw the average person over, I think that is a secondary concern (or a non-concern).
I would call Libertarians Neutral (with Chaotic tendencies), due to disdain of big government and taxes, plus a general "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, do what you want" philosophy.
Admittedly, I don't know enough about the Greens or other parties to have an opinion on them.
|
|
I would call Libertarians Neutral (with Chaotic tendencies), due to disdain of big government and taxes, plus a general "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, do what you want" philosophy.
I have debates with a friend of mine over this all the time. He feels his rights don't end until it over laps another's rights and theirs begins and I inform him on a regular basis that this is not true that his rights end where the communities begins. He has a few good points but doesn't listen well. I also knwo of other unnamed organizations with similar beliefs but to compare the two would not do the libertarians justice so I will refrain.
|
|
There seem to be two kinds of politicians, in both major parties, and they are a reflection of two basic kinds of people;
Neutral Evil - Selfish and Corrupt. They're the ones who end up rich and on the news shows all the time, even after they retire, getting hundreds of thousands (or even millions!) of dollars each year to consult, lobby and / or give speeches to people who already agree with what they are saying, but pay $1000 a plate to hear them say it anyway. They tend to be fiercely protective and territorial of what they consider 'theirs' even if what is 'theirs' happens to be something they stole from someone else, or gained through rules they themselves set up to benefit themselves at a cost to others, 'gaming the system.'
Neutral Good - Idealistic and Naive. They're the ones who vanish into obscurity and / or spend the rest of their lives on some charitable works. They are the epitome of the saying, 'good guys finish last,' because our society is built on a system of punishments, but not rewards, meaning that good-guys are *never* rewarded or encouraged to be good-guys or humanitarians or law-abiding citizens or kind to puppies. They tend to give away stuff and worry about the people that Jesus would call 'the weakest among us,' although they may have different opinions about which group of people is most worthy of such benevolence, which can lead to bitter factionalism among even the 'nice people.' Don Quixote-like, they tilt at windmills, and the rest of the world shrugs at their starry-eyed delusion that people are innately good, and goes back to taking care of number one.
[I predict that someone will get their panties in a twist here, and ignore the fact that I stated that *both* parties have representatives of both groups, assuming that either grouping can be mapped onto one party or the other.]
One could divide these two factions into those who have some blind and irrational faith in humanity, in our ability to become better, to treat each other with compassion, to respect each other and grow into a kinder world, and those who have zero faith in mankind (or anything else, although, paradoxically, those who horde material things, in direct contradiction to the teachings of a certain Good Book, tend to be the ones who invoke it the most fervently...), or in some sort of 'eternal reward' for just behavior, and are only here in this world to take and hold onto every single earthly thing they can, because they do not believe that there is any higher reward, in this life or any other, for a person who cares for others or follows the teachings of some long-dead prophet.
Lawful? Chaotic? Neither seem terribly relevant in today's society, no matter how fond I am of Michael Moorcock's Elric novels.
Libertarians might count as Chaotic. They could also be seen as ultra-Lawful, since they believe that individuals should be responsible for their own actions and not have to be told what is acceptable behavior by some distant federal entity that is attempting to replace personal responsibility and act as a surrogate conscience.
Or I could just be really cynical.
No. Scratch that. I *am* really cynical. And also eternally disappointed that the world has shown so little interest in proving me wrong...
|
|
I have debates with a friend of mine over this all the time. He feels his rights don't end until it over laps another's rights and theirs begins and I inform him on a regular basis that this is not true that his rights end where the communities begins. He has a few good points but doesn't listen well. I also knwo of other unnamed organizations with similar beliefs but to compare the two would not do the libertarians justice so I will refrain.
I would call Libertarians Neutral (with Chaotic tendencies), due to disdain of big government and taxes, plus a general "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, do what you want" philosophy.
I'm guessing here that maybe it's the definition of "rights" that makes the difference, as both of you are correct: my rights do not end until they overlap another's, whether that be one person or a community. I don't have the right to blare my stereo at 3am in an apartment complex, for instance; no more than I can arbitrarily choose to end one or more individuals' lives. Now, if you equate "universal health care" as a community "right", and therefore I lose the right to more of my paycheck; or if you believe that I cannot keep people from walking across my beachfront property because they have a "right" to walk on the beach or a "right" to access the water wherever and however they choose, that's where we start to disagree.
Rather than assigning a single alignment, it might be more useful to analyze each party with regard to various "axis". For example:
Consider one axis to be the attitude toward economic freedom and the other the attitude toward social freedom. Lawful would indicate more societal control while Chaos would be more individual freedom. Keep in mind that everybody thinks they are good. Also, we want to describe how the rank and file define themselves - not the cynical, selfish, manipulative leaders.
Republican - Chaotic economic. Lawful social. You can get as rich as you want, any way that you want, but not marry who you want, and your employer can sell your bodily organs without asking you.
Democrat - Lawful economic. Chaotic Social. Marry anyone or anything you like, but we will take your money and spend it in the way we deem wise for society.
Libertarian - Chaotic both. Your money, your life - just don't hurt anybody. About the time you are starting to think these guys are pretty cool, somebody button-holes you about his plan to privatize the sidewalks.
Greens - Lawful both. The planet is everything, you are less than nothing; you are the problem. We will tell you how to live, what to drive, what jobs you can work at and we will spend whatever you make on projects to save the planet. Hey! If we don't control you, we will all die. What good will your precious freedom be then?
Keep in mind - these are only the views of the "useful idiots". The Leaders of all the parties can best be described as Lawfull Evil - with the possible exception of the Libertarians since they don't seem to have leaders due to their ability to cooperate not rivalling that of cats.