Anyway, the idea of the game was to create a character and then pretend to be that character as the leader, known as the Dungeonmaster, takes you through a series of adventures, gaining experience and treasure as you progress. You could be a human, or an elf, or a dwarf, or a bunch of different things, or a mixture, even. Then you would choose you class, which would be your job title, like wizard or knight or thief.
Also there were dice. Lots and lots of dice.
Anyway, one thing you had to choose for your character was Alignment. This was, essentially, you character's character. You could choose from Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic. Lawful was the rules-following type, while Chaotic was more of the anything-goes variety. Within each of these, there were subdivisions: Good, Neutral and Evil. This determined how you were supposed to play your character, and you WERE supposed to stay in character while you were playing.
Examples of various alignments would be like this: Snow White would be Lawful Good, because she follows the rules and has motives pure as, well, pure as the driven snow. An example of Lawful Evil would be, say, Hannibal Lechter, who played by the rules, just not the same set of rules everyone else was playing. Chaotic Good would be Hudson Hawk (anyone else remember that disaster?): a guy who doesn't necessarily follow the rules, but has good motives, or, at least, good intentions. Chaotic Evil would be the Joker from the Dark Night: Whereas many Chaotics would say "Let It Burn," the Joker would light the fire. Then throw gasoline on it.
I thought it would be, well, not fun, exactly, but maybe...I don't know...AMUSING, at least, to try to place alignments onto various political figures.
It might be just the fact that I am totally smitten by her, but I like to think of Sarah Palin as the Lawful Good type. Not perfect, but trying. Talks straight, has a strong moral code and works hard to live by it. Suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Yeah, I like Sarah Palin.
Other political figures that might fit into this category would be Ted Cruz, maybe Marco Rubio. I don't necessarily have to agree with everything they say or do to believe that they are basically good.
Looking at today's democRats, I find it hard to believe that any of them have good intentions.
Actually, I have a category I would like to suggest: Lawful Stupid. This is where you could find democRats like Mary Landrieu and Bart Stupak, who would compromise on their "principles" receiving nothing more in return than a vaguely worded promise from a man that has a long history of not keeping his promises. Yes, they believe in Law, but they are DUMB. And, let's face it, selling out your nation for a bunch of money for your home state? Hard to call that good.
Then, we have the Prevaricator-In-Chief, who says he believes in the "Rule of Law," but doesn't seem to understand what that phrase means. I contend that he is Lawful Evil: He plays by the rules, it's just that those rules are for radicals. His ends are self-aggrandizement and the arrogation of power to himself and his cronies. He twists and bends the laws until they are unrecognizable as what was originally written or intended.
I'm not going to spend a whole lot of effort on the Neutrals. I really don't care much either way about them. I suspect most politicians fall in this category, but I find it hard to get worked up about them in any real sense.
So, on to Chaotic Good. I think Ron Paul definitely fits into this category: He's sort of laissez-faire in attitude, but his ends tend to be for the betterment of society and the individual. You can disagree with me: I know some crazy tends to emanate from him, but I think he generally has good intentions and goals.
Then, I think you have Chaotic Stupid, which is where you would find morons like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I know she's "leadership," but I'm fairly certain she never says anything or has a thought that isn't spoon-fed to her from those who pull her strings. She's just DUMB.
Finally, Chaotic Evil. You would have a hard time convincing me that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't belong here: They are both disgraces to their professions, to the nation, and to their respective churches. You don't get a "Good" or a "Neutral" by claiming with a straight face, that the Catholic Church is pro-choice. Neither of them play by any recognizable set of rules, though they try to keep up appearances by "deeming" themselves in compliance.
Anyway, that's a start. Does anyone out there have any suggestions or input?