INTP 5w4 -- Top score is Neutral Good, but Neutral is almost equal to it.
(Which sounds like equanimity to me.)
Neutral Good- A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Detailed Results:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXX (7)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXX (6)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaos --- XXXX (4)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Evil ---- XXX (3)
Obviously, most of you have never played D&D, which is where alignment like this originated. Alignment is incapable of producing a complete person, which is why we use it for made up characters. It gives a feel of the direction we want the character to go. I am downright ashamed that not everybody is in the "Good" category. Come on, guys, Evil? Really? You do things with the intention of hurting others?
Lawful good, aintcha?
And yes, of course it's from AD&D. I bought my first D&D boxed set 31 years ago. What's that have to do with not discussing it in terms of personality?
It's just basically a morality test... but personality especially in terms of whether one is more likely to respect authority and appreciate order or else appreciate chaos, etc., can tie into personality. We have threads on this site that test for religious values/beliefs, and there's some correlation as well. (Many more INTPs end up in Buddhism or agnosticism than end up in a conservative religion, for example.)
I doubt that. The problem is the D&D model for alignment doesn't even apply well to the games they originated from anymore. It's almost impossible to align fictional characters nowadays too unless they're particularly one dimensional. People's motivations, intents, and allegiances change to much to be identified on 3x3 grid.
It was just a way for the game originally to cater to the battle between good and evil, set up weapons/items to be used by only certain moralities, etc.
Remember the stupidity called an "alignment language"? What a laugh!
"I'm going to talk to the ranger in Lawful Good now!" That fell by the wayside from the game years ago, I think.
I was involved in a RPG endeavor in the '90's, and the best part of that system was the morality system. It was dynamic, and this was before a lot of systems opted for a more dynamic system. It wasn't complicated, there was just a sliding scale from Giver to Taker (which essentially came down to Other-Centered vs Self-Centered), and depending on where you were on the scale, you got certain benefits and disadvantages. Actions were ranked to ascribe points to the character's alignment.
(Of course, a pen-and-paper system is not as well-suited for that sort of approach, vs a computer/automated scoring approach; the big issue with the game in general is that while the mechanics made more sense than AD&D at the time, the calculations were a little too complex to do quickly by hand, and the ENFJ who created the game wouldn't let anything be touched since he had his own vision for the game... Sigh. So it died.)
I think obviously the most organic approach is to give the Game Master some guidelines and let them handle how items and people react to players based on their actions, it's too hard to make run morality as a rules system. Same thing with personality.