What's Your Alignment?

[Zarathustra]

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.

It makes sense to me that you might feel between True Neutral and Neutral Good, but I do think you lean Neutral Good.

I'm curious about this Lawful Evil alter-ego, though; would you mind expanding on how this is the case?

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.

Not, as we know, that you'd give a shit, but seeing as how you've commented on the declared types of other members you've, let's say, had "mod issues" with, how do you feel about me putting myself as Neutral Good?

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

That is what I figured you were.

 

[Nicodemus]

That is what I figured you were.

If I recall correctly, we had a tiny exchange about something like this on Vent.

 

[Mia.]

Neutral Good. It fits.

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 don’t believe neutral exists. Or at least, I believe that is a misnomer, as passivity and/or variance in behavior is not neutrality. One is tacitly sanctioning one or the other in any situation. I believe we are always struggling with our subjectivity and imperfection, but I believe “the other” in the form of absolute truth exists and we can interact with it and be influenced by it and make decisions about it. I am with Burke that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” One is always making a decision for or against something, even if it is by being passive or inactive.

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

I think it is a useful tool, regardless of origin, which is why I’ve always had it in my signature. I agree it would be fascinating to take it apart more as a framework, perhaps build upon and refine it as a framework, or see if there are correlations between this and other frameworks, etc. Great thread.

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

Yes.

1. As [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION] alluded to, I believe it doesn’t measure actual good or evil, but the desire of one’s heart. One’s orientation. What one will strive toward. If one is a variant of good, it tells me they are predisposed to considering a restraining force, and connection and responsibility to something outside of and greater than themselves. That tells me a lot about how they might potentially conduct themselves in life when faced with situations.
2. And therefore, I believe it has potential to speak into ability to work as a team. I believe people can be wildly different and complementary in other ways, but will have the most success as a dynamic, the least potential problems, and indeed the most intimacy and fulfillment as well, and the greatest impact on others, if they are walking in the same direction and are united to an end.

 

[cascadeco]

It makes sense to me that you might feel between True Neutral and Neutral Good, but I do think you lean Neutral Good.

I'm curious about this Lawful Evil alter-ego, though; would you mind expanding on how this is the case?

Based purely on this description of the link provided in OP:

Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor.

I don't disagree with thinking a well-ordered system is easier to exploit, and if I happened to be of this nature where I didn't care, I'd probably twist things to work in my favor. Also, with X-men's Magneto being cited as a Lawful Evil, I always really *liked* Magneto's character and could empathize/relate in a sense; so if I actually was of that disposition, and wanted to dominate and enforce my will on others, I could see myself going his / the Lawful Evil route, rather than the other two evil routes. Using the system/working with the system to my advantage.

 

[EJCC]

I've taken a few tests in the past, and generally tested as Lawful Good, but I could also see myself being Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good.

I'll take a few more of the tests in the OP later, and see what happens.

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't disagree with thinking a well-ordered system is easier to exploit, and if I happened to be of this nature where I didn't care, I'd probably twist things to work in my favor. Also, with X-men's Magneto being cited as a Lawful Evil, I always really *liked* Magneto's character and could empathize/relate in a sense; so if I actually was of that disposition, and wanted to dominate and enforce my will on others, I could see myself going his / the Lawful Evil route, rather than the other two evil routes. Using the system/working with the system to my advantage.

But... wait.

The question is whether you are of this disposition.

You keep on using non-indicative language like "if I happened to be" or "if I actually was of"...

The question is not whether if you were of this disposition, would you be this way...

The question is whether or not you are of that disposition...

 

[Totenkindly]

Not, as we know, that you'd give a shit, but seeing as how you've commented on the declared types of other members you've, let's say, had "mod issues" with, how do you feel about me putting myself as Neutral Good?

I don't give a shit, but I don't mean that in the "I hate Zara" way... more as in you asked the question and I found myself shrugging, like, "whatever."

If I take a second to analyze, I'm less confused about Neutral Good showing up at all in your profile and just more curious about why Neutral Good MORE than some other type... I mean, I think you are indifferent to rules and you generally mean well and I suppose your defiance to any established ruleset you feel is violational is more driven by providing for the good of all?

But it also gets into something like I'll use Nico's read to address:

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

Nico quotes himself as Chaotic, and in one sense I can see it, as he doesn't seem to really care about what the rules are if I had to analyze it. He just says and does what he wants, without regarding to the decorum, to the point of getting talked to by mods on occasion. He just doesn't prefer to be controlled.

On the other hand, I would say that Nico has one of the most structured personalities on the forum, far moreso than me. (I feel I am far flexier and amorphous.)

Which means that if we start trying to tie MBTI to these alignment reads, well, I just do not know if that will work. They seem to be measuring different things. Just because Nico is TJ doesn't mean that he's necessarily Lawful in terms of the scope of what Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic entrails. Yet I know many times that people will imagine the Lawful Evils to be very TJ and the Chaotic Goods to be very FP, for example. J vs P is used as equivalent to the Lawful/Chaotic scale, and yet that seems possibly not that case, or at least not such a clear 1-to-1 analogy.

 

[cascadeco]

But... wait.

The question is whether you are of this disposition.

You keep on using non-indicative language like "if I happened to be" or "if I actually was of"...

The question is not whether if you were of this disposition, would you be this way...

The question is whether or not you are of that disposition...

Well.. I don't think that I am? You asked me to elaborate on an alter-ego, which is somewhat hypothetical; it's not something I AM in my day-to-day life...

 

[Zarathustra]

If I take a second to analyze, I'm less confused about Neutral Good showing up at all in your profile and just more curious about why Neutral Good MORE than some other type...

Hmm...

What type would you expect to show up more?

EDIT: oh, it seems you added something to this that might answer this question.

I mean, I think you are indifferent to rules and you generally mean well and I suppose your defiance to any established ruleset you feel is violational is more driven by providing for the good of all?

Yeah, I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

I think I can actually be somewhat lawful, but I can also be somewhat chaotic.

I actually have an aspect or two in my natal chart that basically explicitly say this.

The most consistent part of my personality (in this system), tho, is that I aim for the good.

I think there's a funny contrast between that truth and how a large number of people perceive me, tho.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well.. I don't think that I am? You asked me to elaborate on an alter-ego, which is somewhat hypothetical; it's not something I AM in my day-to-day life...

I love the "..." at the end.

Beware people!

Cascadeco is secretly EVIL

 

[cascadeco]

I love the "..." at the end.

Beware people!

Cascadeco is secretly EVIL

Oh, you.

 

[Rasofy]

Can you expand on that?

Imagine a chaotic good and a chaotic neutral are in prison, both serving life sentences. They have an opportunity to escape, but they need to kill a guard.

Chaotic neutral's mindset: ''I know this is a mean thing to do, but he would probably do the same, under the same circumstances.''

Chaotic good's mindset: ''This guard is a mean person. He doesn't even treat the other prisoners well, so I'll be doing a very good thing to the world by exchanging him for me."

Beware people!

Cascadeco is secretly EVIL

Impossible.

 

[Zarathustra]

Imagine a chaotic good and a chaotic neutral are in prison, both serving life sentences. They have an opportunity to escape, but they need to kill a guard.

Chaotic neutral's mindset: ''I know this is a mean thing to do, but he would probably do the same, under the same circumstances.''

Chaotic good's mindset: ''This guard is a mean person. He doesn't even treat the other prisoners well, so I'll be doing a very good thing to the world by exchanging him for me."

All you've done there is create a very specific situation, without any expository information to indicate why the situation has arisen, and then ascribe certain behaviors/motivations to each type that wouldn't necessarily be there for an individual of that type. You want to talk about rationalization, the above is it. And unless you can actually provide some worthwhile argumentation, your position is revealing itself as nothing more than rationalization for moral indifference/laziness/weakness.

 

[JocktheMotie]

You are 19.4% Evil.
You are 59% Chaotic.
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral


You follow your own personal whims. You are first and foremost an individualist. You value your own freedom and liberty but won't necessarily strive to protect that of others'. You hate restrictions, challenge traditions, and shun authority. You may be at times unpredictable, but your actions are not random or without thought.
You are the stereotypical “Free Spirit.” You feel truly free from both society's restrictions and the zeal of a do-gooder.
Examples of charactersand people who fit into the same alignment as you include Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, Tarzan, and Tyler Durden.

I tend to get Chaotic Neutral or sometimes True Neutral, which isn't surprising, as that's my general understanding of how the world works. It's relevant in the sense that it accurately describes how I navigate said world. I don't think I'd take it in to consideration on a date. Though if they were Lawful I'd think, "pfft, I'll fix that."

 

[Rasofy]

All you've done there is create a very specific situation,

Well, most scenarios of the test were also very specific (and extreme).

without any expository information to indicate why the situation has arisen,

Indifferent, as they would rationalize their situations and actions through the same process. That's why I think Hitler could have been a Lawful Good.

and then ascribe certain behaviors/motivations to each type that wouldn't necessarily be there for an individual of that type.

Fair enough.

You want to talk about rationalization, the above is it. And unless you can actually provide some worthwhile argumentation, your position is revealing itself as nothing more than rationalization for moral indifference/laziness/weakness.

And I will call that self-righteousness.

 

[Laurie]

I'm trying to judge this for me but all I can think of is whether my rogue would be willing to slice the throat of someone who was in my way but wasn't evil.

Or stuff like this from the WoTC site:
By using magic, you could fool village merchants into thinking your copper pieces were made of gold. Do you?

Yes, and I'll buy as much as I can
Yes, but I'll only cheat the rich merchants
No, it's too risky
No, those merchants have families to feed

It's about having fun playing stereotypes. I'm not sure these really fit rl people.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, most scenarios of the test were also very specific (and extreme).

The tests are irrelevant.

A person's character is what matters.

Indifferent, as they would rationalize their situations and actions through the same process.

Context matters, too.

That's why I think Hitler could have been a Lawful Good.

I think this is an interesting case, but I think, in the end, it would merely be a sign of his delusion.

Per the Lawful Evil description Cascadeco provided:

Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor.

That's Hitler.

And I will call that self-righteousness.

Self-righteousness accompanied by truth is just Righteousness.

/ Did not vote for Obama.

Did go to the inauguration.

 

[ZPowers]

As a nerd who has played his fair share of D&D, I've taken several of these tests. I usually get neutral good, leaning more toward chaotic than lawful.

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?

1. Somewhat, but not fully. I'm sure certain types are more prone to be, say, lawful or chaotic, but I don't doubt that there's a lot of room in every type for each grouping. It'd be interesting to somehow chart the patterns. Anyways, my moral beliefs have been reinforced primarily via logic, which fits my type, but I'm not sure what bearing that has.

2. Not consciously. I wouldn't date someone cruel or self-serving (well, someone I knew was cruel or self-serving). I also get a bit cold by people who too uptight and law abiding, they seem to have trouble enjoying themselves to me. Even worse, though, are people who are extremely anarchistic, mostly because they tend to be extremely annoying and the conversations I've had with those type are circular and never-ending.

Did you ever post what you usually get, Zara?

 

[Cloud of Thunder]

True Neutral.

 

[Totenkindly]

The most consistent part of my personality (in this system), tho, is that I aim for the good.

it's funny because I think, then, that good can be expressed in different ways. I don't really do good by vehemently opposing the system, I try more to empower people to live wherever they are regardless of the system...
(I wonder if THAT has anything to do with type.)

All you've done there is create a very specific situation, without any expository information to indicate why the situation has arisen, and then ascribe certain behaviors/motivations to each type that wouldn't necessarily be there for an individual of that type. You want to talk about rationalization, the above is it. And unless you can actually provide some worthwhile argumentation, your position is revealing itself as nothing more than rationalization for moral indifference/laziness/weakness.

You seriously don't understand what he means by that? (Honest question.)

I'm curious simply because the distinction in motivation is obvious to me. What exactly where you looking for him to say? (Another honest question.)

I could have seen myself providing a very similar answer, and for me it conveys exactly what I think the difference is, no more context needed.