What's Your Alignment?

[JocktheMotie]

My apologies, Jock, but it seems Nicodemus decided to speak your line in this Socratic dialogue...



First, do you believe that certain people feel this imperative to a greater (or lesser) degree than others? And, if so, what causes them to feel this imperative to a greater (or lesser) degree than others?

Second, do you believe that such behavior, when it positively benefits both themselves and others (presumably, at least sometimes, it would not), rightfully deserves to be called "good"?

I think they do and the variance will be rooted in a whole host of reasons, from social, to religious, to more pragmatic concerns and all sorts of things. Second, I believe the behavior of individuals and groups can be judged and critically analyzed for value against useful criteria despite the fact there is no absolute reference frame for "good and evil" morals.

I'd consider myself neutral simply because my personal morals are rather fluid and situational rather than trending in a consistent direction. I am also a very big ends justify the means sort of guy.

Wait, are you saying that there are people that act good for their own benefit? Because if so, that's NOT why I am a "good" person.

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.

 

[Hazashin]

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.

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 ...".

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.

 

[The Ü™]

Well, of course I'm gonna say Chaotic Evil, because that's the coolest one!

 

[Rasofy]

Well, of course I'm gonna say Chaotic Evil, because that's the coolest one!

Poser!

 

[EJCC]

Well I guess I'm Lawful Good? I just took one of the tests and it said 47.2% Good, 41% Lawful.

I guess that explains why I was confused by the alignment system... I always associate the laws of "lawful" with morals; i.e. that my laws are moral ones. The laws I live by aren't laws for the sake of there being order (as with lawful neutral).

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?

(haha, I accidentally typed "personal lawls" just then!)

 

[Tiger Owl]

Neutral Good

 

[miss fortune]

used to score chaotic good a few years ago... then I had to grow up and get some responsibilities and such and now I took several different tests for comparison and got all lawful good except for one neutral good... ... that sounds MUCH less fun

I suppose that I'm pretty much a bound woman though... there are moral and social laws that I mentally have in place that I cannot feel good about breaking... I have to create loopholes if I wish to circumvent them, and even then there'd better be a damned good reason for me to forsake any of them because I put them there for a REASON... I've turned into such a square, I fear

 

[Rel]

I'm a bit ambiguous as to whether or not a person can be willfully good or evil, thus all actions may just be the nature of said individual, something they lead themselves into through a long string of thought.

 

[Lexicon]

You Scored as Neutral Good
A Neutral Good person tries to do the 'goodest' thing possible. These people are willing to work with the law to accomplish their goal, but if the law is corrupt they are just as willing to tear it down. To these people, doing what's right is the most important thing, regardless of rules, customs, or laws.

70% Neutral Good
70% Lawful Evil
65% Chaotic Good
60% True Neutral
35% Neutral Evil
25% Chaotic Neutral
25% Lawful Neutral
25% Lawful Good
25% Chaotic Evil


/shrug - makes sense, to me. While I don't assign moral value on the basis of it being accepted as legally enforced status quo, I generally follow my own moral compass, based around a wish to learn, grow, & a will to help others to help themselves do the same, without limits. I tend to handle things 'under the radar,' to avoid various forms of potential [needless] conflict/unpleasant legal consequences, to achieve my goals & uphold my values. I don't create conflict every time I am in a situation where certain behaviors are socially favorable; I'm still myself at the core, but I appreciate the value of diplomacy- building rapport to strengthen understanding, and communication. I have resorted to bending/challenging established rules that make no sense to me. I try to come up with new solutions to help myself/others navigate this messy world, in our cluttered minds, & live authentic, fulfilling lives. [Why else do we exist?]

This test seems pretty reminiscent of other personality tests. Measures how we see ourselves, and what we may or may not value. And who or what we allow to define such things. Different names for the same patterns. New angles in perspective are always useful, in some way or another.

I wouldn't test someone I was going to date, per se. Testing only measures a limited degree of dimension within a person's psyche. Certain elements are quite telling, but it seems like it'd be limiting myself if I gauged 'who' someone was on the basis of just one system.

 

[Nicodemus]

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

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:

This is an impressive example of missing the point(s).

 

[ebrietas]

I always score as either Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral.

 

[1487610420]

You are 25% Good.
You are 5.1% Chaotic.
Alignment: True Neutral


You do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. You don't feel any strong inclination towards good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Some may say that you lack conviction, while others might admire you for your capability of remaining unbiased. You likely prefer good versus evil in society, since good people tend to make better neighbors and rulers, but you are not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
You are the stereotypical “Balancer.” You act in a way that is natural to you without prejudice or compulsion.
Examples of charactersand people who fit into the same alignment as you include Linus Torvalds, Dr. Strangelove, Scott Evil, Mr. Spock, and the nation of Switzerland.

Seems mostly accurate.

A different view on gauging personality and instinct, compared to MBTI and other model tests, has potential for better assessing preferred roles by providing context to choices, thus less prone to having the results being tampered from assessment blindspots. While useful for insight, I wouldn't deposit much weight on it regarding a potential date.

 

[1487610420]

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."

Isn't that the definition of neutral?

 

[BlackCat]

I'm very surprised that this isn't in the OP- http://easydamus.com/alignment.html That's easily the best alignment site out there IMO.

I do have a few qualms with the system myself...

First off I've always seen it as being really cool, but then the evil options are just somewhat impractical. I have honestly never met a truly evil person in my life, anyone that could come close to that has been either a misguided Good person or a flighty Chaotic person. Even some of the most stereotypically "evil" people in history, like Hitler, have probably been mislead Good types (since a neutral type probably wouldn't care either way).

I've always related somewhat more to Chaotic Neutral descriptions over Chaotic Good, because they make it so Chaotic Good people only live their lives based on other people. Like this for example...

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."

I think that this is an example of how this could be tailored more toward games than anything... I mean, if the Good person were already contemplating escaping by killing a guard, I think that it would be more that they would feel bad about it but if they didn't then their life would be over. I don't think any rational, good person would suddenly accuse someone of being a bad person that they wanted to kill. That more ties into the "misguided good" type I was describing.

For me it's hard NOT to think of other people, but I don't necessarily think that that's all that I live my life by. Neutral is the least "extreme" of them all... and since this is based mostly in a game and you can KIND OF apply it to real life (even though I love this system) it's just a really hard translate. If only there were one made for real life.

 

[Elfboy]

i got true neutral, but i've gotten lots of different results before. never evil or lawful though.

chaotic neutral suits you

 

[Hazashin]

This is an impressive example of missing the point(s).

How so?

 

[mmhmm]

You are 11.1% Evil.
You are 28.2% Chaotic.
Alignment: True Neutral

You do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. You don't feel any strong inclination towards good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Some may say that you lack conviction, while others might admire you for your capability of remaining unbiased. You likely prefer good versus evil in society, since good people tend to make better neighbors and rulers, but you are not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

You are the stereotypical “Balancer.” You act in a way that is natural to you without prejudice or compulsion.
Examples of charactersand people who fit into the same alignment as you include Linus Torvalds, Dr. Strangelove, Scott Evil, Mr. Spock, and the nation of Switzerland.​

 

[Elfboy]

used to score chaotic good a few years ago... then I had to grow up and get some responsibilities and such and now I took several different tests for comparison and got all lawful good except for one neutral good... ... that sounds MUCH less fun

I suppose that I'm pretty much a bound woman though... there are moral and social laws that I mentally have in place that I cannot feel good about breaking... I have to create loopholes if I wish to circumvent them, and even then there'd better be a damned good reason for me to forsake any of them because I put them there for a REASON... I've turned into such a square, I fear

I think you're true neutral personally

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Chatoc Neutral, sometimes I test as Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil though.

Famous Chaotic Neutral are Han Solo opr Tyler Durden, for example, peoples that I can totally identify with, and who mean that Chaotic Neutral is the most baddass alignement.

 

[miss fortune]

I think you're true neutral personally

What you think matters a little less to me than the assessments of those I interact with on a daily basis... Sorry