What's Your Alignment?

[Redbone]

By being neutral, we are able to recognize that sometimes evil is more reasonable than good.
Imagine a boy that gets sexually abused by his father every single day for years. Then, one day, the child grabs a knife and stabs his father to death while he was sleeping. Plus, stabs him so much that the funeral is pretty much ruined. Was his action ''good''? Nah, it was pretty evil. Still, reasonable.
There's also the classic criminal law example of a shipwreck scenario, on which there is only a float for 2 people. On this scenario, the reasonable course of action is to fight for your life no matter what. I'd call that evil. Yet, once again, reasonable. And the criminal law recognizes that (the person will not be punished).
There's torture, which can't be called good, but can still be a reasonable option, depending on the criminal and the objective of the torture.
I sometimes ask myself why people worry about Kony. I mean, they just worry, but for the most part don't do anything, they just retweet bs. So why even worry? They think they're being ''good'', while I think I'm being ''neutral'', and the end result is basically the same.

Yep. I often think, "Wow, that was horrible/evil...but I can understand why it happened."

 

[Zarathustra]

By being neutral, we are able to recognize that sometimes evil is more reasonable than good.

We'll see about that.

Imagine a boy that gets sexually abused by his father every single day for years. Then, one day, the child grabs a knife and stabs his father to death while he was sleeping. Plus, stabs him so much that the funeral is pretty much ruined. Was his action ''good''? Nah, it was pretty evil. Still, reasonable.

I wouldn't call that evil.

Not one bit.

There's also the classic criminal law example of a shipwreck scenario, on which there is only a float for 2 people. On this scenario, the reasonable course of action is to fight for your life no matter what. I'd call that evil. Yet, once again, reasonable. And the criminal law recognizes that (the person will not be punished).

This is obviously an interesting case.

There are a lot of hypotheticals that would need to be considered to arrive at a proper judgment.

There's torture, which can't be called good, but can still be a reasonable option, depending on the criminal and the objective of the torture.

Once again, many hypotheticals.

I sometimes ask myself why people worry about Kony. I mean, they just worry, but for the most part don't do anything, they just retweet bs. So why even worry? They think they're being ''good'', while I think I'm being ''neutral'', and the end result is basically the same.

As I said before, kids these days.

Although, while I don't know much about this whole Kony deal, I did read one thing about the phenomenon, and I do find it interesting.

I'm not about to go tweet about it, tho.

***

Conclusion: nice try, Senhor Lazy INTP, but I still don't think any of the above necessarily shows a consistent difference between being good and being reasonable. I think your "reasonable" is kind of a catch-all for being morally lazy. In other words, "I'm not really bad, but I don't care enough to be good."

 

[Zarathustra]

Well that's just the thing. I can gleefully practice selfish petty vengeance, and I really do expect other people to fuck off when I'm sleeping or my blood sugar is low. I get really bad impulses sometimes. Not necessarily to hurt anyone, but just completely self-centered.

That's why I think I'm Chaotic Neutral who leans toward Chaotic Good. I've gotten both, though my last result was Chaotic Neutral...

Yeah, I think that all seems like a pretty reasonable judgment.

And I definitely support things like "'Chaotic neutral' but lean towards 'Chaotic good'/'Chaotic evil'".

...on the test where they put you in all of these imaginary scenarios, self-preservation seemed pretty high on my list of priorities.

Interesting what you said about self-preservation. What's your instinctual variant? Sp/Sx?

I wonder if any of this could be correlated to that...

Interestingly, contrary to what one might have thought, there doesn't seem to be that strong of a correlation b/w J and lawfulness.

 

[Rail Tracer]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]

Lawful 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.

Good and Evil are just definitions. What one see as good can be seen as evil by another and vice versa.

Rules of conduct, I follow what I see fit and dispose of those I do not see fit. A law that is detrimental, is a law that is detrimental, whether it is good or evil. Completely shun any type of laws and we resort to chaos. There is no rules of conduct to keep everything in order. People are allowed to do anything, whenever, and wherever without consequences. And that is the last thing we want to do in a society where everyone can do whatever they wanted to (if there is such a utopia that allows this to exist, let me know.)

It is relevant I guess, but I do on occasion just throw the lawfulness away because it really is restrictive (and a big headache.)

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

Ehhhhh, seems better at adding on top of MBTI/Enneagram than being alone. Lawful Neutral sometimes make me think of 1w9.....

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

Nope, but the other person can at least see where I am coming from.

 

[Thalassa]

Yeah, I think that all seems like a pretty reasonable judgment.

And I definitely support things like "'Chaotic neutral' but lean towards 'Chaotic good'/'Chaotic evil'".



Interesting what you said about self-preservation. What's your instinctual variant? Sp/Sx?

sx/sp...I tended to flee, in those scenarios, any act of "good" that might put myself in too much jeopardy, I tended to do things like quietly slink away.

Just took another test and got Chaotic Neutral again.

 

[Thalassa]

Another one of these tests said I was Neutral Good. The test was structured totally differently, it had no scenarios, just value questions.

 

[Rasofy]

Conclusion: nice try, Senhor Lazy INTP, but I still don't think any of the above necessarily shows a consistent difference between being good and being reasonable. I think your "reasonable" is kind of a catch-all for being morally lazy. In other words, "I'm not really bad, but I don't care enough to be good."

:yim_rolling_on_the_
Fair enough. And I think your ''good'' just means you rationalize evil much better than me.

 

[Thalassa]

:yim_rolling_on_the_
Fair enough. And I think your ''good'' just means you rationalize evil much better than me.

Well, it's really subjective. Actually I don't see a problem with murdering an abuser, if they've abused someone to the point they feel trapped otherwise...like true physical fear. I'm not sure that's "evil."

I don't even agree with Zara that it's "morally lazy."

Torture can be reasonable in the right context.

I think morality can be contextual to the situation.

And my internal moral code tells me which cases justify this kind of vengeful violence, though. I don't think it's a random thing, not at all. Which is why although I'm not especially lawful (but recognize the necessity of law to hold society together) I can understand the Lawful Neutral alignment...to a degree. I don't have that deep-seated need or talent to create order...but I do understand "this is right by my own internal code and I will not betray it."

However, it may look "evil" to some others.

I tend to look at my neutral alignment being because of not only this subjectivity, but because sometimes I really am not being "good" but doing what I personally feel is right for me.

 

[redacted]

Neutral Good fosho

 

[011235813]

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

It's fun to take the odd alignment quiz when I'm bored, but honestly, that's pretty much it. In its current form, it places far less emphasis on interpersonal relationships than Jungian typology and on personal growth than the Enneagram, so I find it less relevant. I like thinking about TypeC members of different alignments hanging out in ye olde taverne, cleaning their armour and gossiping over their mead though.

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

It isn't likely that I would think about it, but I have certain expectations for how my mate should behave and if he doesn't live up to those, then it just isn't going to work out. For example, I don't think I could overlook consistently spiteful or selfish behaviour in a mate. I also tend not to find extremely law-abiding people interesting enough to date. A streak of subversiveness, however slight, is more or less essential to me.

In the past, I've got on best with people who tested Neutral Good like myself, or Chaotic Good or True Neutral. I didn't actually think about their alignments before they told me; I tended to assume that they were all more good than not, and still believe they are, including the ones who are adamant about their neutrality.

 

[SilkRoad]

I got Neutral Good.

50% Good and 28.2% Lawful.

Pretty much what I would have expected except I might have thought I'd be more lawful!

 

[Starry]

I got Neutral Good.

50% Good and 28.2% Lawful.

Pretty much what I would have expected except I might have thought I'd be more lawful!

Hey...this is what I got too! But I was like 48% Good and like 7 % Chaotic (?)

I was thinking about this last night though and discussing it with an INFJ friend...that while I supposed many INFJs would 'test' as 'Lawful'...the desciption does seem *slightly anal* (<--- whoa does that sound bad? I didn't mean it that way)...for the INFJs I know.

 

[SilkRoad]

Hey...this is what I got too! But I was like 48% Good and like 7 % Chaotic (?)

I was thinking about this last night though and discussing it with an INFJ friend...that while I supposed many INFJs would 'test' as 'Lawful'...the desciption does seem *slightly anal* (<--- whoa does that sound bad? I didn't mean it that way)...for the INFJs I know.

I don't know much about this system but I would have thought Neutral Good would be pretty normal for INFJs, but perhaps leaning a bit toward Lawful Good if anything. I am sure I would have leaned more toward Lawful Good than Chaotic Good. And actually, I guess that's why I got "Lawful" in my percentage score, and you maybe lean a bit more toward "Chaotic" so that showed up in yours? *is a bit confused*

It's kind of interesting but it seems like a bit of a vague/fluffy system.

 

[Zarathustra]

And I think your ''good'' just means you rationalize evil much better than me.

Can you expand on that?

 

[cascadeco]

Well, the only test in the OP I have access to while here at work is the Quizfarm one, but tbh I don't understand the results I got, based on the fact that I answered all of the 'do you want to hurt others' questions in the negative, and one of the points of 'Lawful Evil' is that they have little concern for others they hurt. So... ? Result doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway....top results on this particular test -

Lawful Evil 55%
True Neutral 50%
Neutral Good 45%
Lawful Good 45%

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, the only test in the OP I have access to while here at work is the Quizfarm one, but tbh I don't understand the results I got, based on the fact that I answered all of the 'do you want to hurt others' questions in the negative, and one of the points of 'Lawful Evil' is that they have little concern for others they hurt. So... ? Result doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway....top results on this particular test -

Lawful Evil 55%
True Neutral 50%
Neutral Good 45%
Lawful Good 45%

Well, while I'd love to add a Lawful Evil to our polling mix, knowing you, I'd recommend holding off until you take another test or two, and/or understand the system better. Just like MBTI, what you get on a test doesn't determine your type; your type is your type.

On the other hand, maybe _________ ___ _____.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've taken various tests on this.

I'm typically Neutral Good, and this gels with reality -- I'm very much Neutral Good.

My priority is that the "greater good" is done, that people can be content with their lives and function well. I don't like to hurt people and shy away from that, nor do I steal or take advantage of people; I respect their personhood and want to liberate who they are.

While I grew up in a Lawful atmosphere, at this point in my life I realize a lot of discontent and frustration with that is that I'm not Lawful myself. I'm ambivalent to Law. If it serves a relevant purpose, then it's useful and then I'll support it; if it doesn't serve a useful purpose, I usually ignore it or sidestep it.

Having had at some points in my life to become an enforcer of law and structure, I found myself agonizing over some aspects of such responsibility, especially if I was in conflict with those who were more Lawful or more Chaotic. I believe in that rules are necessary in groups due to the sheer diversity in behavior, so without the rules the group will likely fracture and people will also be hurt / taken advantage of (which, as a Good person, is a big deal to me); however, my preference is for people to monitor themselves when possible and have as few restrictions as feasible to create the most cohesive and productive environment. Overall, I prefer to be an example rather than an enforcer/cop.

Anyway, order and structure is just a tool. I'll use it if it makes sense. If not, I'd rather get rid of it. The more strict the structure gets, the more I find myself rebelling; however, I find the more chaotic something becomes, the less efficient and productive it becomes, and I don't like that either.

.... Sometimes I can veer closer to Neutral in my Good/Evil compass as well, although typically I always remain on the Good side. It's more that in this world, I am capable of viewing good and bad as parts of a cause/effect chain (i.e., detached rather than so personal), and bad things can create positive impact by how a person rises to meet the bad. I have a large sense of Balance, so I can grasp why someone might end up being more pure Neutral in outlook; yet I'm aware that if something personally bad happened to me or those I love, once it's made personal, it's hard to be neutral about it.

I got Neutral Good.

50% Good and 28.2% Lawful.

Pretty much what I would have expected except I might have thought I'd be more lawful!

I suppose it's more of a battle between the inner Intuition and the outer Fe Structure. I think there's a flexibility in Ni that isn't found as much in Si.

---

I don't think I understand why Marm came up as Chaotic Neutral, though. Out of anyone on this site, she seems to constantly be defending the downtrodden and sticking up for the rights of others, passionately, more than I know I verbalize... yet I have no doubts that I'm "Good" in terms of what I value. That doesn't sound very neutral to me.

EDIT: Okay, just went back and read all your posts in the thread about it. So it seems like you're more a range of behavior, and what you say makes more sense to me now. Interesting comparison between you and JTG, and I'd have to say I felt that kind of tension when I was modding ... between Law and Neutral (him and me, respectively). I like to have the rules as guidelines and for general application, but I hate slapping people into Procrustean beds, and I'm too quick to see nuance, which makes it hard to apply rules like a cookie-cutter solution. (It's not even that I want to "help" people; the nuance itself demanded that I tailor everything to the situation at hand, to be accurate, or I'd feel like I was being "incorrect" in some way.) Some people appreciated that; others did not; oh well.

 

[cascadeco]

Well, while I'd love to add a Lawful Evil to our polling mix, knowing you, I'd recommend holding off until you take another test or two, and/or understand the system better. Just like MBTI, what you get on a test doesn't determine your type; your type is your type.

Well, in reading all of the short descriptions, the top 3 I got in the test are probably in the end my top 3. I highly doubt though that Lawful Evil is my top/type. However, of the evils, it would definitely be my 'evil'/ alter-ego, and I imagine I have elements of it.

It's probably a tossup though on whether True Neutral or Neutral Good would be my dominant one.

 

[Totenkindly]

If we find a Lawful Evil, can we burn it with fire?

Or not. Whatever. I suppose it doesn't matter. Live and let live.

I actually like to poke Lawfuls with sticks... not enough to hurt them, just enough to see what they do in response. (With Chaotics, the game is about hooking a length of chain to their collar and then seeing what they do with it.)

 

[Nicodemus]

I dislike the term, but the description that fits best is Chaotic Neutral.