User Tag List

View Poll Results: What's your alignment?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lawful Good

    4 5.26%
  • Neutral Good

    29 38.16%
  • Chaotic Good

    9 11.84%
  • Lawful Neutral

    4 5.26%
  • True Neutral

    12 15.79%
  • Chaotic Neutral

    12 15.79%
  • Lawful Evil

    4 5.26%
  • Neutral Evil

    1 1.32%
  • Chaotic Evil

    1 1.32%
First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 210

  1. #41
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I could argue that I'm right here:
    good------------reasonable------------evil
    What, in your opinion, is the difference between being reasonable, and being good?

    How bout evil?

  2. #42
    libtard SJW chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    So you're not a bad person, nor are you necessarily a good person?

    You're a neutral person.

    If so, it seems like the system kinda cuts to the core of things...
    what does it even mean to be a good person, though?

  3. #43
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    What if what makes someone happy is evil?

    Do you support them doing it because it makes them happy?
    That depends on the situation.

    For instance, there are quite a few people that consider stem cell research "evil" or at the very least "wrong". However people pursue such research because it can save people, and one would hope that they save people because it makes them happy, and not for the money... So they are commiting an "evil" to make themselves (and others) happy, and I fully support them in that instance. This is one situation where I think the subjective nature of good and evil comes into play. Some will consider it good others won't. So basically, it depends on the situation... So really, I can't answer your question, because it would have to be asked for each specific instance that you could ever think of. There is no one answer.
    ...

  4. #44
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chana View Post
    what does it even mean to be a good person, though?
    What do you think it means to be a good person?

  5. #45
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    I always score Chaotic good or Chaotic neutral. I think apart of me wants to be Chaotic neutral and I relate to it in a way because I consider myself to be a highly independent person; but no matter what I can't really escape from the fact that I have basically good intentions and have others' well being in mind with everything that I do, and that I really can't live solely for myself no matter how much I try.

    As for the Chaos part, I really dislike order to be perfectly honest. I am pretty rebellious and I really like to shake things up. When things get too predictable I get very bored and antsy, and a lot my reactions to things in my life feel very unpredictable and probably appear to be really random and knee jerk in nature because they're based on feelings. I'm not really set in my ways so much, I live to change.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  6. #46
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Neutral Good.

    I think laws and order are generally helpful and usually for the greater good, but my ethical sense will win out over law every time - I think ethics are more fuzzy/complicated and more important than laws can account for (and laws are made to promote good, not vice versa). As for good over evil (in the alignment sense), I believe that true "good" inherently helps everyone, so it makes no sense in my internal logic to be evil or even neutral - being "good" helps me as much as it helps others (plus I have always felt the compulsion to help others).

    I think it's a pretty good description, but I feel that the good-evil labels are likely to throw people off - probably there are a lot of "evils" running around identifying as neutral because they don't want to be evil. Or is a true evil person less likely to care? Probably, but I still bet there's bias because of it.

    I think it's a relevant system, but moreso in terms of human interactions, instead of intrapersonal development, which MBTI and the Enneagram are better for.

    As for dating, that's funny. I suppose realistically I can only see dating someone in the Neutral-to-Good and Neutral-to-Lawful range. I feel like dating a Chaotic would be a pain in the behind (sorry to any Chaotics, I'm just enough of a mess already), and dating an Evil would cause endless pain on my part, since I'd always be looking out for them and they wouldn't be always looking out for me. Right now I'm dating a (suspected) Lawful Good, which seems to work well for me. He could be a little less of either and I'd probably be fine too, though.

  7. #47
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    That depends on the situation.
    Ok, but what you originally said was:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth
    I think people should do what makes them happy, I don't care if someone calls it good or evil.
    So you've pedaled back a little bit, haven't you?

    Before you required no restrictions on what they were able to do that would make them happy, but now you are, aren't you?

    I guess the question becomes, in what kinds of situations would your original maxim not apply?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    For instance, there are quite a few people that consider stem cell research "evil" or at the very least "wrong". However people pursue such research because it can save people, and one would hope that they save people because it makes them happy, and not for the money... So they are commiting an "evil" to make themselves (and others) happy, and I fully support them in that instance. This is one situation where I think the subjective nature of good and evil comes into play. Some will consider it good others won't. So basically, it depends on the situation... So really, I can't answer your question, because it would have to be asked for each specific instance that you could ever think of. There is no one answer.
    I think stem cell research does present an interesting moral, specifically when you get down to the nuances of where the stem cells are coming from, but, as in your previous example about self-defense, I think looking to the grey areas is problematic, whereas looking to the extreme examples, that hopefully we can all agree on, shine light on the fact that you may not be so willing to call morality subjective as you originally claimed you were.

  8. #48
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    For example, do you believe that whether or not rape is moral or immoral is entirely subjective?

    How about genocide? Or child abuse?
    You see, the thing that I can't seem to get across is that it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what everyone thinks at any given time across history.

    If you look throughout history you will see that many of those things were acceptable, if not encouraged in certain situations in the past.

    In order for morality to truly be objective and not subjective, the morality of an action should not vary from person to person or group to group. What is child abuse now was just disciplining your child in the past. The action never changed, just the group that was evaluating the action did. I'm not saying I think child abuse is right, I'm just saying that in the past it may not have been considered wrong.

    Again, I'm sorry if my thoughts can be difficult to follow, I can never tell when I'm becoming incoherent.
    ...

  9. #49
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    I always score Chaotic good or Chaotic neutral. I think apart of me wants to be Chaotic neutral and I relate to it in a way because I consider myself to be a highly independent person; but no matter what I can't really escape from the fact that I have basically good intentions and have others' well being in mind with everything that I do, and that I really can't live solely for myself no matter how much I try.
    @chana

    Imo, the quality expressed by @BlackCat @the bolded is a pretty good place to start pointing to when trying to determine what it means to be a good person. It could be fleshed out a bit more, but what he expressed here is pretty much what I already had in mind.

  10. #50
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Neutral Good.
    Well, we already knew that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I think laws and order are generally helpful and usually for the greater good, but my ethical sense will win out over law every time - I think ethics are more fuzzy/complicated and more important than laws can account for (and laws are made to promote good, not vice versa). As for good over evil (in the alignment sense), I believe that true "good" inherently helps everyone, so it makes no sense in my internal logic to be evil or even neutral - being "good" helps me as much as it helps others (plus I have always felt the compulsion to help others).
    Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I feel.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I think it's a pretty good description, but I feel that the good-evil labels are likely to throw people off - probably there are a lot of "evils" running around identifying as neutral because they don't want to be evil. Or is a true evil person less likely to care? Probably, but I still bet there's bias because of it.
    Umm...

    Well, I don't know if the true evils would care, but I don't know whether they'd want to come out and openly admit that they are evil. It might hurt their ability to execute their dastardly deeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I think it's a relevant system, but moreso in terms of human interactions, instead of intrapersonal development, which MBTI and the Enneagram are better for.
    Hmm...

    Interesting thought...

    Yeah, I don't know whether you can really "change" or "develop" on this system.

    It kinda just seems you are one way, and likely probably always have been that way.

    Ok, maybe not, I suppose certain shifts could happen in one's life, a la what UniqueMixture said.

    But I don't know if those changes would be anything you could or would want to have control over.

    It seems like you could kind of have a "conversion" experience to being more good or more evil, tho.

    I'm not sure whether people would be as likely to slide on the order vs chaos axis, tho -- maybe...?

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    As for dating, that's funny. I suppose realistically I can only see dating someone in the Neutral-to-Good and Neutral-to-Lawful range. I feel like dating a Chaotic would be a pain in the behind (sorry to any Chaotics, I'm just enough of a mess already), and dating an Evil would cause endless pain on my part, since I'd always be looking out for them and they wouldn't be always looking out for me. Right now I'm dating a (suspected) Lawful Good, which seems to work well for me. He could be a little less of either and I'd probably be fine too, though.
    See, one of the reasons I'm interested in this system is because of dating.

    The fact of the matter is, I think I only want to date someone who is good.

    Whether lawful, neutral, or chaotic, I'm not as sure; neutral would probably be my top choice.

    Between lawful and chaotic: lawful has the stigma of being a boring anal retentive, while chaotics just seem like they might throw too much unnecessary drama/chaos into the mix. I don't know whether individuals of these preferences would necessarily have to hold to these stereotypes, tho. I'm sure there could be cooler and less cool lawfuls, and more manageable and less manageable chaotics.

Similar Threads

  1. What's Your Moral Alignment? [Buzzfeed]
    By Nørrsken in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 01:14 AM
  2. What's your alignment?
    By Evil Otter in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 04:27 PM
  3. [NT] NTs, what are your AD&D Character Alignments?
    By Speed Gavroche in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 11:43 AM
  4. [SP] SPs, what are your AD&D Character Alignments?
    By Speed Gavroche in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 06-22-2010, 11:12 PM
  5. [NF] NFs, what are your D&D character alignments?
    By Aleksei in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 06-20-2010, 12:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO