Liberals tend to seek out novelty and uncertainty...

>Liberals tend to seek out novelty and uncertainty, while conservatives exhibit strong changes in attitude to threatening situations. The former are more willing to accept risk, while the latter tends to have more intense physical reactions to threatening stimuli.

Which group has the best adventurers?

Risk takers, willing to try anything, flitting from one strange new experience to another.

Xenophobes with an eye towards possible danger, quick to kill monsters with calculated brutality, suspicious of the unknown.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sIu7NiJ-r8A
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Depends on where they're going and what they're doing. If you're going someplace dangerous, the one who just goes with "kill anything threatening" is going to generally serve you better than "Oh, cool, can I pet him?"

A healthy mix of both. Too many of either and the party is probably doomed.

Some systems support one style of adventure over the other. Games about investigators favor a conservative approach, and games about entrepreneurs favor a more risky approach.

>>Liberals tend to seek out novelty and uncertainty, while conservatives exhibit strong changes in attitude to threatening situations. The former are more willing to accept risk, while the latter tends to have more intense physical reactions to threatening stimuli.
Yet they invented 'safe spaces' and 'triggering'

>conservatives exhibit strong changes in attitude to threatening situations.

Implying implications, being conservative in current year.

/pol/ pls go

Liberals are fucking retarded people who shoot themselves in the foot all the time. They don't have adventures, they are the people you read about in the papers on how their stupidity got them killed in ridiculous ways.

youtube.com/watch?v=sIu7NiJ-r8A

Let's keep /pol/ in /pol/ and retarded ideologies out of Veeky Forums

Liberals discover new wonders.
Conservatives live to tell others about them.

The people who study to become wizards while you retards argue politics.

This.
You need a mix where each type plays off the strengths of the other.

>That feel when the ageing conservative barbarian dies and the rest of the party no longer has a voice of reason holding them back from ruinous ventures

Lawful>Chaotic

>Thinking neo-fascists are liberal in any way other than name

My thoughts exactly.

Gotta have a good mix, homogeneous groups are for when you are ad libbing encounters because your PCs got farther than you expected and you don't want to end the session early.

>Not inculcating the lessons of their wise elder to carry on his teachings that will save them from their ruinous fate.

Liberal by the standards of the setting, which translated into modern terms would make them far-right extremists.

A good party needs both, best to be adaptable to spot opportunities as well as vigilant to avoid ambushes

...

This is why you won't find liberal adventurers. They'd just get mauled to death by the first monster they saw because they treated it like a pet puppy or like they were at a zoo

And you won't find conservatives adventurers because anything new or different sends them crying.

Liberals don't listen to their elders, user.

They listen to the media.

Conservatives avoid the media, and look towards things that don't brainwash them... like the bible and Fox News.

>/pol/

>"let's keep /pol/ in /pol/"
>posts garbage /pol/opinions

Okay, bud.

Its like you've never went out with some deep south rednecks.
They pop an entire can of dip in, shotgun a few beers, hop in their truck with some rifles and go adventure.

next thing you know your climbing a tree to escape the pack of boars, and your buddies can't help you because there busy with this buck one of them managed to catch and is holding it down by the antlers while the other guy is trying to force-feed it beers.