What's your alignment?

[Rixus]

Where do we all stand on the Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil chart?
And why do you think this?
[bimgx=500]//uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170317/fa0a80b736e6fc0d528dd3f7a7ad0b1b.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Rixus]

I'd go for either Neutral Good or Chaotic Neutral.
Probably more of a Neutral Good - I mean well and try to do the right thing. Rules and laws are useful, but they're more of a guideline really and I'll use a judgement call when necessary.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think as far as my personality, I'm closest to true neutral and neutral good.

*can't sleep* ):

 

[TBerg]

I am probably Lawful Neutral. I hate when people play by unfair rules, even if the lawbreakers are well-intentioned.

 

[Cognisant]

I think "lawfulness" is a measure of how fettered someone is, for example would you shoot down a passenger plane to assassinate a tyrannical dictator knowing the other passengers are just random people?

In terms of morality assuming you did shoot this plane down, did you do it because it's the right thing to do or because you're getting paid?

Then there's the people who weren't listening because they were playing with the missile launcher and shot the plane down by accident

I dunno you tell me.

 

[Rixus]

Well, that's why I put this in The Lounge and not in Fun. It could be a little fun, but knowing this place it could lead to a moral debate.

Before you ask someone if they could blow the plain up, ask first if they could shoot the dictator on his own with a sniper rifle. Skill aside, could you even kill at all? Not everybody can.

But my guess on how each alignment would solve the problem would be:
Lawful Good – Absolutely would never hurt an innocent. Probably couldn’t kill anyone at all. Believes the best thing is to petition for a UN intervention so that the dictator could be lawfully arrested for humanitarian crimes and tried in a court.
Neutral Good – Doesn’t want to hurt innocent lives. Choses a sniper rifle and shoots the target at the airport.
Chaotic Good – Goes in guns blazing with 17 kinds of machine gun looking Swarzeneggar in Commando. Causes much destruction of property and possibly blows up the plain unintentionally. May or may not already have passengers on board.
Lawful Neutral – If the UN doesn't sanction interference, then they won't do anything. Law is law. Law says you cannot assassinate the leader of a country. Might sanction a trade embargo against the country.
True Neutral – This is none of their business so doesn’t get involved.
Chaotic Neutral – Totally unpredictable. Possibly blows up the plain if they have a personal involvement or can gain from it. Maybe they’ll do it free, maybe they’ll take the money and disappear without doing anything. Who knows.
Lawful Evil – Has you arrested for attempted terrorism and supports the dictator. Hopefully takes large payment.
Neutral Evil – Blows up the plain. Becomes the new dictator of said country.
Chaotic Evil – Blows up a different plain because that was more fun. Plus you didn’t expect them to.

 

[JR_IsP]

As myself, I'd probably be some "True neutral", but not because I'm not interested, but because I think that I need more info. I mean, I believe in scientific and rational persons, persons who know what to do and when, and they take care of their own responsabilities, so, If the world were poblated by people like that, I'd probably bet for some kind of anarchy, if the people know how to get ride of themselves, there is no need for a government.

However, right now, in this selfish and shortminded world, lawful neutral/evil. People need rewards and punishments to act properly, and law is the best way of doing so. Maybe some super police with access to every device of suspicious people, you know, just in case.

Greetings from the country where there IS a dictator to kill

 

[Jennywocky]

I range from Neutral Good to regular Neutral. Organization and rules are tools, so they can be helpful, but if a certain structure is less efficient or effective then it might be otherwise, then it should be ignored or discarded. I place more value in general on the well-being of the people versus the well-being of the structure.

When I drift into pure Neutral, it's more of a symptom of scope rather than indifference. Sometimes in the big scale of things, suffering happens in the process of a big broad change that ends up being more beneficial in the end... or simply unavoidable because of how the system functions. It's more a contextual view. I dunno. Even my own suffering can sometimes be placed in context of such systemic shifts. It's more about balance and how the system flows along and maintains itself. When I'm focused more on the microcosm around me, that's when I focus more on the Good element because individual lives matter on the personal level.

I am not Neutral Evil, but I found it very easy to play such a character in one of our long-running campaigns -- there, it's about knowing what you want and being pragmatic about getting it without long-range regard for others. There is a kind of pragmatism that filters into both Neutral Good and Neutral Evil, honestly -- you do what works, you just care less about how you get there. Lawful folks care very much how you get there. Chaotic folks just seem more driven by how they feel at the moment, or what appeases them at the moment; you can change what you're doing in a moment, just because it amuses you or feels good. I guess it's a shift from outer (Lawful) to inner (Chaotic).

 

[OmoInisa]

The taxonomy itself is obviously the product of Alpha values, as the Socionists would have it. It was probably created by an NTP.
INTPs would most likely see themselves as True Neutral or Neutral Good. ENTPs as Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral. It's built on Si (lawful, neutral), Ti (true, neutral), Fe (good) and Ne (chaotic, evil)
Alphas (and Deltas and Betas to a point) will find it a little fun and interesting. Gammas will find it irrelevant.

 

[Hadoblado]

Neutral good.

I'm not really into rules and regs. I do go a little chaotic sometimes but that's more of a mood than a temperament.

 

[Black Rose]

Lawful good

 

[redbaron]

Chaotic or Neutral Good. I think I'd be lawful good if being lawful made sense where I was.

 

[Rixus]

What's interesting is the fact that most people identify with Neutral Good fits with Piaget's theory of a healthy moral development.

The idea is that babies are born with no understanding of morality, and only selfish needs. Then, they learn to follow rules given to them by what they see as absolute authority figures, usually for fear of repurcussion. After this, they push those boundaries and test the consequences as far as they can, rejecting rules and authority (the rebellious teenage stage).

Then you would realise that rules actually help to keep safety, peace and a functional society. They're there for a reason. Finally, once you understand the purpose behind rules and laws, you can formulate your own moral code that follows what those rules were meant to achieve, but realise that sometimes absolute rules have limitations in some circumstances and can be bent or even broken when the need arises, but have developed the sense of morality to know when this is appropriate. And that's something that can only be learned through experience and wisdom.

The downside of this, and what i disagree with about it, is that insinuates that children need discipline and rules, and fear of punishment. My own experience with children is that they respond best to milder enforcement of rules. Humans seem to associate punishment with the punisher and not with the act of breaking the rules. Children may seem well disciplined and follow the rules well when they are enforced, but it only seems to lead to a much greater level of rebellion. I've found that even when they're young, my kids have always behave better when they understand why they have to follow certain rules. Again, it points to having a better moral code when you understand the reasons behind the rules and laws rather than simply following them in a rote fashion.

 

[Hadoblado]

Maybe.

But really I don't think there's many viable choices at all. It seems like there's 9 options... but:
- Evil is more a biproduct of narrative than something people actively identify with. Even people who do identify as evil are probably more mentally ill than genuinely bad.
- Lawful and chaotic axes are quite extreme. You would need to be a pretty severe outlier to identify as truly chaotic. Chaotic good is like being a freedom fighter or whatever. Being truly lawful is less rare, but also something people probably don't identify strongly with. Nobody wants to feel like a mindless drone.
- True neutral is also kind of extreme.

So that kinda just leaves neutral good. Are you sane and even close to normally socialised while not having a vested interest in being squeaky clean (for example, an officer of the law, a politician, or a soldier)? Yes to all of the above? -> neutral good most of the time.

Of course none of this is actually opposed to Piagetian notions, just that it feels like any theory that describes people would probably predict the same.

 

[Ex-User (12972)]

Simply put, chaotic neutral.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

True neutral

Edit: Okay now that I read about true neutral, I'm definitely not one. Although I remember testing as such
I'm probably neutral good

 

[Starfishtea]

I always test as true neutral but I usually expect the outcome to be chaotic neutral or chaotic evil. This is not a thing I've spent a lot of time looking into but as a base I tend to view myself as chaotic and somewhere between neutral and evil.

 

[Hadoblado]

You actually think of yourself as evil? How so?

 

[Rixus]

Self perception may not be either true or the way other people see you. Be interested to know why Starfish sees herself as evil as well.

I just did a test on it. I'm a little bit evil, but mostly neutral good:

http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html

You Are:


Neutral Good



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 when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaos --- XXXXXX (6)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8)
Evil ---- XXXXXXX (7)

 

[The Gopher]

True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are even. I probably appear lawful good despite it being the lowest score.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXX (5)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXX (9)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXX (3)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Evil ---- XXXXX (5)

 

[TheManBeyond]

chaotic evil

i mean, i know i can be a rat sometimes but i'm not that evil as it might look like

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are even

same


nuetral good and chaotic good are also very close

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXX (7)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXX (4)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXX (9)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Evil ---- XXX (3)

 

[Creeping Death]

Chaotic good.

 

[JR_IsP]

As I expected, true neutral.

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXX (7)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXX (7)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaos --- XXXXX (5)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Evil ---- XX (2)

 

[Rixus]

So far, I've had both the highest evilness and goodness.
I guess I'm more extreme than the rest of you.

 

[Jennywocky]

So far, I've had both the highest evilness and goodness.
I guess I'm more extreme than the rest of you.

Braggart.

TIME FOR AN EXTREME-OFF

The idea is that babies are born with no understanding of morality, and only selfish needs. Then, they learn to follow rules given to them by what they see as absolute authority figures, usually for fear of repurcussion. After this, they push those boundaries and test the consequences as far as they can, rejecting rules and authority (the rebellious teenage stage).

Then you would realise that rules actually help to keep safety, peace and a functional society. They're there for a reason. Finally, once you understand the purpose behind rules and laws, you can formulate your own moral code that follows what those rules were meant to achieve, but realise that sometimes absolute rules have limitations in some circumstances and can be bent or even broken when the need arises, but have developed the sense of morality to know when this is appropriate. And that's something that can only be learned through experience and wisdom.

The downside of this, and what i disagree with about it, is that insinuates that children need discipline and rules, and fear of punishment. My own experience with children is that they respond best to milder enforcement of rules. Humans seem to associate punishment with the punisher and not with the act of breaking the rules. Children may seem well disciplined and follow the rules well when they are enforced, but it only seems to lead to a much greater level of rebellion. I've found that even when they're young, my kids have always behave better when they understand why they have to follow certain rules. Again, it points to having a better moral code when you understand the reasons behind the rules and laws rather than simply following them in a rote fashion.

I agree that too much rule enforcement / structure is not good and that some point one's behavior must be generated internally rather than imposed externally. Individual differences mean our level of flourishing occurs under different levels of structure, probably; but in general the "rebellion" stage is a necessary stage of human psychological growth. So parents should not fret when a kid begins pushing back; you want to help your kid not to do stupid things and to understand that some degree of self-control is necessary to function, but at the same time you gotta give your kid flex and let them buck the system so they can figure themselves out and learn what they truly value... and then those values become theirs, whatever they might be.

I was in a situation where I was not really allowed to go outside the lines and while it made me look like "a good kid" on the surface, I ended up having to stretch myself and buck the system later in life. I don't feel like I came into my own until my 30's, where I was willing to stand up against more restrictive cultural influences and figure out what I was willing to fight for and over, and know who "I" was. In that way, my parents and my subculture did me a disservice by being so restrictive. It took me a long time to find my own voice externally (normally I just withdrew from everyone so I could feel free).

 

[Rixus]

Braggart.

TIME FOR AN EXTREME-OFF

Throw down your gauntlet and take the test! Let's see how extremely neutral you are.

 

[Jennywocky]

I took that test at least five times in the past, I don't remember where my latest results are....

Throw down your gauntlet and take the test! Let's see how extremely neutral you are.

*cuts your hamstring from behind

Take that biatch. Am I evil enough yet?

 

[Rixus]

But can you be the evilest and the most righteous at the same time?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Jennywocky]

Here are my results from Feb 2014 (three years ago?):

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXX (7)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXX (6)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaos --- XXXX (4)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Neutral - XXXXXXX (7)
Evil ---- XXX (3)

I'll see if I can find more. I guess I can retake it too, but... arrrgggggg not again.


EDIT: Retaken today.

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXX (5)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXX (7)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaos --- XXX (3)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Evil ---- XX (2)

... a bit more Neutral.

 

[Rixus]

You don't have a bone of evilness in you, do you? Did you skip the queue when were handing out nefariousness?

I think I got your share - how else could I just drop my best friend and feel nothing? The scary thing is, I don't think I ever did feel anything. I've never actually said this to anyone, but the reason I befriend her in the first place was an experiment to see how close an apposite sex friendship you could get without anything romantic or sexual occurring. I should feel bad about that, but I don't. I got bored. This is why I question whether I'm actually psychopathic or not. This is also why I was questioning whether one can be emphatic out of logic alone - I usually do what I consider right. Not out of any feeling of guilt or compassion or anything, but because I know logically. But it's kind of disconcerting that I can be so cold when I want to.

 

[Jennywocky]

You don't have a bone of evilness in you, do you? Did you skip the queue when were handing out nefariousness?

I'm not actually evil, although I can play evil on TV easily enough. As you can see, I straddle the line between Good and Neutral as far as my sense of mercy goes. Like, I don't see the point to being Evil I guess... When you dick people over, not only does it dick them over but they are prone to dick you over in return; and you also lose out on information and learning opportunities... plus you end up alone because no one trusts you. And I know that sounds clinical and I'm not being quite honest -- the reality is that I do feel good when I feel I have touched another mind outside of mine, and I can empathize/identify with folks and like it when they can do such with me. The universe can feel pretty lonely when you're on your own and all you have is the echo chamber of your own head. It does make me feel good to provide something to another person and feel like they have benefitted, and it feels good to have them share something with me that expands my awareness and makes me feel less abandoned in space.

If you don't care about that stuff, then I guess it's not much of a loss to lose a connection.

I think I got your share - how else could I just drop my best friend and feel nothing? The scary thing is, I don't think I ever did feel anything. I've never actually said this to anyone, but the reason I befriend her in the first place was an experiment to see how close an apposite sex friendship you could get without anything romantic or sexual occurring. I should feel bad about that, but I don't. I got bored. This is why I question whether I'm actually psychopathic or not.

yeah, I don't get your comments about "experiments" that you drop from time to time on this forum. Like, to me, that comes across as a joke. Do you really just view everyone else as playthings? Or objects to move around a board? Or do you feel any inclination to actually engage someone on a personal level and enjoy giving and receiving trust and personal information?

I mean, I guess if you can do that and are being completely accurate in your honesty, then that would suggest some kind of attachment issue. If you are doing it just because you're scared of being vulnerable or you have trust issues, then that would suggest you're not really psychopathic but are just detaching/objectifying in order to reduce your own anxiety levels. Motivations/Reasons are everything.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXX (7)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XX (2)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Evil ---- XXXXX (5)

I'd say chaotic lazy is most accurate.

 

[Rixus]

I'm not actually evil, although I can play evil on TV easily enough. As you can see, I straddle the line between Good and Neutral as far as my sense of mercy goes. Like, I don't see the point to being Evil I guess... When you dick people over, not only does it dick them over but they are prone to dick you over in return; and you also lose out on information and learning opportunities... plus you end up alone because no one trusts you. And I know that sounds clinical and I'm not being quite honest -- the reality is that I do feel good when I feel I have touched another mind outside of mine, and I can empathize/identify with folks and like it when they can do such with me. The universe can feel pretty lonely when you're on your own and all you have is the echo chamber of your own head. It does make me feel good to provide something to another person and feel like they have benefitted, and it feels good to have them share something with me that expands my awareness and makes me feel less abandoned in space.

If you don't care about that stuff, then I guess it's not much of a loss to lose a connection.

yeah, I don't get your comments about "experiments" that you drop from time to time on this forum. Like, to me, that comes across as a joke. Do you really just view everyone else as playthings? Or objects to move around a board? Or do you feel any inclination to actually engage someone on a personal level and enjoy giving and receiving trust and personal information?

I mean, I guess if you can do that and are being completely accurate in your honesty, then that would suggest some kind of attachment issue. If you are doing it just because you're scared of being vulnerable or you have trust issues, then that would suggest you're not really psychopathic but are just detaching/objectifying in order to reduce your own anxiety levels. Motivations/Reasons are everything.

Mostly, I'm just joking about it when I drop it in. But there is definitely an element of detachment in general. Every time I've tried to form a genuine attachment with someone, and given them access to my feelings, it's only gone badly. There's stuff I won't share, but there are a lot of reasons why, in reality, I have such low self esteem. In other words, I think it's partly a form dissociation from feelings to avoid getting hurt.

Don't worry, no interactions here are anything like that. I was originally here to find out more about this whole INTP thing and what it meant, but it's not the same thing. I would genuinely love to meet some I could let my guard down with, but I just haven't found anyone like that in a long time. I've kind of given up hope in finding an actual match. In the case I mentioned, the option was there but for various reasons she never got past the barriers.

 

[Shieru]

i got Chaotic Neutral, which sounds 'bout right to me.. but Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil are close seconds. CHAOS bwahahaha!

___________


Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XX (2)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8)
Evil ---- XXXXXXX (7)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Chaotic Good

Spoiler

Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)

Meh. The dnd alignment system is too discrete. It's boring or restrictive when players stick to their alignment too much.

I generally quit once the GM enforces "alignment mechanics", that's what a 'chaotic' person would do tho. DnD is best played without all the above bs.

 

[PmjPmj]

According to the test, True Neutral.

I thought I'd come out as Chaotic Neutral tbh.

 

[Jennywocky]

Chaotic Neutral seems to be a status symbol around here...

I generally quit once the GM enforces "alignment mechanics", that's what a 'chaotic' person would do tho. DnD is best played without all the above bs.

My GMs don't force anyone to fulfill their stated alignment -- it's simply that after enough behavior accrues, the player is told that their alignment has shifted and/or all the NPCs will react to that character accordingly. (The only reason it really matters are the game mechanics to determine what Detect spells work, or whether someone is susceptible/immune to certain types of damage, etc.)

 

[redbaron]

It's almost as if alignments for a game aren't very translatable to real life morality.

I'm shocked and appalled.

 

[Jennywocky]

...I'm shocked and appalled.

you are such a sheltered sensitive snowflake, poor dear.

 

[bvanevery]

Neutral Good. I spend a substantial portion of my life trying to envision ways to do Good, whether I accomplish anything or not. Law is merely a tool; there can certainly be unjust law. Chaos, I think of as artistry / creativity / thinking outside the box. It too is a tool; one can be a really useless flake if one doesn't exert some discipline on the creative process. I suppose the only thing I don't like about the label "neutral" is it can have the connotation of apathy. I don't believe in apathy; I do believe in Balance.