• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What's Your Alignment?

What's your alignment?


  • Total voters
    73

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What you think matters a little less to me than the assessments
I would disagree with this. I think I am a better judge of character than the shallow analysis capability of a 30 question test.

of those I interact with on a daily basis... Sorry :newwink:
this on the other hand you're probably right about. I don't know a lot about you and some of your friends may be better with this particular system than I am

in case you were interested, my reasoning for thinking you are true neutral is as follows (based on my current opinion of you, which I confess may not be highly accurate, in which case feel free to point out where)
Neutral (Law vs Chaos)
- you don't display inherent loyalty to a system, but you are willing to cooperate that system for personal gain
- you don't strike me as particularly rebellious, but neither are you exceedingly cooperative (and certainly not compliant
- you seem to be diplomatic and good at dealing with all kinds of people

Neutral (Good vs Evil)
- you aren't extremely focused on other people. your goal is to make money for yourself and enjoy your life
- you probably enjoy helping people from time to time, but when you feel like it and after your own needs and desires are taken care of
- I don't sense particularly strong feelings of vengeance, hate or aggression from you, so not Evil
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I would disagree with this. I think I am a better judge of character than the shallow analysis capability of a 30 question test.

you just WANTED to disagree :nono:


this on the other hand you're probably right about. I don't know a lot about you and some of your friends may be better with this particular system than I am

in case you were interested, my reasoning for thinking you are true neutral is as follows (based on my current opinion of you, which I confess may not be highly accurate, in which case feel free to point out where)
Neutral (Law vs Chaos)
- you don't display inherent loyalty to a system, but you are willing to cooperate that system for personal gain
- you don't strike me as particularly rebellious, but neither are you exceedingly cooperative (and certainly not compliant
- you seem to be diplomatic and good at dealing with all kinds of people

Neutral (Good vs Evil)
- you aren't extremely focused on other people. your goal is to make money for yourself and enjoy your life
- you probably enjoy helping people from time to time, but when you feel like it and after your own needs and desires are taken care of
- I don't sense particularly strong feelings of vengeance, hate or aggression from you, so not Evil

as I said, you don't know me in real life... there's a lot of aspects that don't show up on the forum... for example, being the person who codified and wrote out the office rules and expectations for new people... along with a good portion of the sales method as well... not to mention that I pretty predictably go out of my way to help others out even if I don't want to because it's the right thing to do... one of my minions informed me the other day that while I'm always on the side of good, I'm certainly not always nice by any means... especially if you break one of my cardinal rules of THINGS THAT YOU JUST DON'T DO :thelook:

and money really isn't that important of an aspect of my life... I'd rather be a good boss than the one with all of the money... we have someone who falls into the other category in the office... I think he's a tremendous douche bag :thumbdown:
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Repeating my question since I think it got missed:
Is it typical of Lawful Good people to mix up lawfulness and need to be morally good? i.e. that the "good" takes the form of personal laws?
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here is a result, lmao.

True Neutral- 70%
Chaotic Evil- 55%
Chaotic Good- 55%
Lawful Evil- 55%
Neutral Good -55%
Lawful Good- 50%
Chaotic Neutral- 45%
Neutral Evil- 40%
Lawful Neutral- 25%
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Is it typical of Lawful Good people to mix up lawfulness and need to be morally good?
I guess so.
224-lawful-good-were-gonna-bust-this-thing-wide-open-and-then-do-the-necessary-paperwork.jpg
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Once I took the alignment test and got 50% on both scales. What placed me directly in the center.

As a matter of fact I am too much of a relativist to be anything else in this typing system.



So the True neutral it is.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
Lawful Evil...???...???
Hubby thought I'd score chaotic good... To break the law is not a challenge, to do what you want while following the law is!
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.

:laugh:! True.
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...?

I figure maybe you could have some major perspective change that would cause you to shift on the Law-Chaos axis, like going from a conservative fundamentalist household where you were basically subject to your parents' rule and going away to college - I think this happened with a friend of mine; she seems to have moved from Lawful Good to Neutral Good after escaping her parents' indoctrination and discovering the freedom of intellectual society... or maybe the opposite happens, you grow up in a fairly lawless household with a lot of strife and fighting and are Chaotic because that's basically how you learned to live, but you start to grow towards Lawful as you see how order and stability can create peace and harmony...

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.

True. For me, I think wanting to be with someone who is either Neutral or Lawful is like wanting (needing?) to be with someone who is a J - I just know that given my own strengths and weaknesses, my life is going to be a lot smoother and happier if I have a J around. Yes, sometimes I will want to totally overturn their morning routine just because I find the perceived "necessity" of it to them illogical and annoying, but for the most part I will find it endearing and the regularity and sureness of it comforting. And yes sometimes I will want my Lawful or Neutral to say "fuck it all" and run off for the hell of it, but truth be told I don't really want them doing that in my personal life. Not to me. With externals, yes, maybe, but that's just indicative of me wanting a change in my external world and me needing to actually do something about it.

I do know that I have to be with someone for whom Good is the top priority, over Law. I couldn't handle being with someone who is Lawful over Good, because, like I said, I think law exists to foster good.

I think it's less about sorting people via system and more like you have to learn what is best for you internally and then these systems become shorthand for what you know works for you. Of course you are going to run across a few outliers who are good for you despite their usually unappealing type or bad for you despite their usually appealing type (probably more of the latter), but for the most part, these systems - MBTI, Enneagram, Alignment - get at core perspectives that speak to how you will act and react in every realm of life and the basics of how you operate as a person... MBTI covering how you think; Enneagram how you protect yourself; Alignment what you value most.
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
I think there's actually a lot of value to this system.

I know a thread like this has been made before, but there was no poll.

Here are some places you can take a test:
http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/take
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b
http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/Style/crewman/what-is-your-alignment/
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html

Here are some explanations of the system:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

The nine alignments can be represented in a grid, as follows:
Lawful Good - Neutral Good - Chaotic Good
Lawful Neutral - True Neutral - Chaotic Neutral
Lawful Evil - Neutral Evil - Chaotic Evil

Also, if you don't mind, share why you think have the alignment that you do, and how relevant of a descriptor you think it is.

Do you think it is more, less, or equally as relevant as the MBTI/Jungian typology or the Enneagram?

Would you take this system into consideration when it comes to whom you date?

Really interesting thread. I am responding first before reading the whole thread so I don't change answers.

Taking this test: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b

I am breaking down my responses to the categories because I found it interesting how divergent I am depending on how far removed I am from the focus.

Family: I answer in alignment with the family's need on average with a few answers supporting solely myself.
Friends: Similar to family answers.
Community: My answers shift pretty far here to reveal I don't care about my community, but desire help from them if I need it.
King/Country: My answers shift even further beyond what they did in the community. If I can get away with it, I will do it. If I need to, I shall flee.
Crime/Punishment: Haha, very similar pattern to the above. If I can get away I will do it with an emphasis on indirect harm rather than direct.
Business/Economy: Sort of in the middle.

And as a result I got Neutral/Neutral.


Also, if you don't mind, share why you think have the alignment that you do, and how relevant of a descriptor you think it is.


I think I have this alignment because when I broke the categories down it shows how divergent my behavior is depending on what the situation is. If it is close friends/family then I will lean in one direction. If it is something far removed like government then I go in the opposite direction. Both modes serve me the most.

Do you think it is more, less, or equally as relevant as the MBTI/Jungian typology or the Enneagram?

I am INFP type 4 SX/SP. I think it fits with who I am. The SX side of me likes bonding with a few people whom I value. The SP side of me wants to make sure I am in a good position to be secure and safe. The more I can get away with something to keep me secure, the likelier it is that I will do it.

Would you take this system into consideration when it comes to whom you date?

I have never thought of this before, so I am unsure.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
So ENTPs are evil ? I never would have guessed.
Evil okay, but lawful? Isn't that synonymous to J? Granted, I have worked a bit on some Judger abilities, but I'm not going to change type! :pumpyouup:Ne:rock:
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
It seems Jock has no intention of explaining it himself. So here is my take.

I think that being good is certainly personally satisfying to a lot of people, and that's why they do it. Why are you a good person then, if not to satisfy your own cognitive need to be so? There's nothing inherently negative about selfishness.
What Jock means is that people do good out of a desire to do good. That desire, may it be a 'genuine care for the well-being of others and humanity at large' or an urge to save snails from being squelched, is a personal desire, and satisfying it is thus selfish: you do good because it makes you feel good. You may think that it is the right thing to do, too. But that does not change the fact that you get off on helping others.

First off, what you have described in the bolded sounds like Stage 3 of Lawrence Kholberg's 6-stage theory of moral development:

In Stage three (interpersonal accord and conformity driven), the self enters society by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" to live up to these expectations, having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the "golden rule". "I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me." Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these social roles. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; "they mean well ...".
What is described here has nothing to do with the above. Doing something because it makes you feel good and doing something because it makes others think highly of you, which in turn makes you feel good, are very different. For one, good follows directly from his desire to do good; for the other, good follows from his desire to be appreciated by others.

Secondly, I am a good person because I genuinely care for the well-being of others and humanity at large. My reasons are more along the lines of Stage 6 of Kholberg's theory of moral development:

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.
This, on the other hand, which really is Kant's idea, is, perhaps surprisingly, not incompatible with doing what makes you feel good. It might just be that following an abstract principle of what is considered good in your daily life is also what makes you feel good.
 

Hazashin

Secret Sex Freak
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,157
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It seems Jock has no intention of explaining it himself. So here is my take.

What Jock means is that people do good out of a desire to do good. That desire, may it be a 'genuine care for the well-being of others and humanity at large' or an urge to save snails from being squelched, is a personal desire, and satisfying it is thus selfish: you do good because it makes you feel good. You may think that it is the right thing to do, too. But that does not change the fact that you get off on helping others.

What is described here has nothing to do with the above. Doing something because it makes you feel good and doing something because it makes others think highly of you, which in turn makes you feel good, are very different. For one, good follows directly from his desire to do good; for the other, good follows from his desire to be appreciated by others.

This, on the other hand, which really is Kant's idea, is, perhaps surprisingly, not incompatible with doing what makes you feel good. It might just be that following an abstract principle of what is considered good in your daily life is also what makes you feel good.

Well, I can tell you that, while it does feel good to be good, that's certainly not my motivation. I like helping others for the sake of helping others, because I genuinely care about other people.
 
Top