Your RL alignment?

[Tengu_temp]

Neutral good with chaotic tendencies. I wanted to say "neutral with good leanings", but, honestly, that's good. I do not subscribe to the "you have to be a living saint to count as good, you have to be a monster to count as evil" school of thought.

[Daishain]

neutral, fairly strong bent towards lawful and good end of the scale

[Dienekes]

Neutral good with chaotic tendencies. I wanted to say "neutral with good leanings", but, honestly, that's good. I do not subscribe to the "you have to be a living saint to count as good, you have to be a monster to count as evil" school of thought.

Living saint? Nah, but for me you have to be active in your good-ness. A normal person, will say, give a beggar some cash or food. Or hold a door open for someone behind them. Or any minor little things that just come up. A good person at least tries to take steps to be good or better than they otherwise were. That's where I fail, in my mind. If something comes up, I'll generally speaking step up. But I've never gone looking to help others.

Well, I fail there, and my general enjoyment at laughing at people when they screw up.

[Tengu_temp]

Living saint? Nah, but for me you have to be active in your good-ness. A normal person, will say, give a beggar some cash or food. Or hold a door open for someone behind them. Or any minor little things that just come up.

Actually, the way I see it, someone who does various minor acts of kindness towards strangers, especially acts that cost them money or effort, and doesn't do anything evil that'd nullify them, is good. A neutral person will just pass by, because they're strangers and you don't care about strangers, or would help once in a blue moon.

Being good or evil doesn't require going out of your way to look for situations where you can make things better or worse for other people. You can be either while just living a normal life and just reacting to whatever it throws at you.

[EvilAnagram]

Neutral Good. I enjoy studying philosophy, and I tend to put a fair bit of consideration into what constitutes moral behavior. I also have both lawful and chaotic tendencies, like I imagine most people do. Balance is important, but so is morality.

[Venom3053000]

I got a blank page

but if I had to guess Neutral Good or True Neutral

[Inevitability]

No CN people? That's... surprising at the very least.

[Dienekes]

Actually, the way I see it, someone who does various minor acts of kindness towards strangers, especially acts that cost them money or effort, and doesn't do anything evil that'd nullify them, is good. A neutral person will just pass by, because they're strangers and you don't care about strangers, or would help once in a blue moon.

Being good or evil doesn't require going out of your way to look for situations where you can make things better or worse for other people. You can be either while just living a normal life and just reacting to whatever it throws at you.

I respectfully disagree. I think we both see this stuff as a spectrum, there are many different levels where people are marginally better than the one before, or marginally worse. Trying to cut that into good or neutral is a lot of finagling. Now personally, I see actually labeling someone as Good means that this person does stand head and shoulders above the rest. Not nice, not better, this individual is actually Good. Now that doesn't mean they have to be a saint, but they have to try, to put in the effort to be better.

That's just how I see it anyway.

[golentan]

According to the test I took, I am always more good than evil and always more lawful than chaotic, in that order. (seriously, my number of answers in descending order by alignment was LG, NG, CG, LN, TN, CN, LE, NE, CE).

Doesn't fool me though. I'm LE. There are some things you can't recover from, alignment wise. Plus I laugh more maniacally than anyone else I know, and have been told I'm one lab accident from becoming a supervillain.

[Sartharina]

No CN people? That's... surprising at the very least.

I am True Neutral. Too much respect for my Social Contract, Deity, and Clan to be Chaotic. Too hateful of my nation's laws and legal system to be Lawful (My brother went through Police Academy. His experience related to me from that made me terrified of police and our law system). Too compassionate and forgiving to others to be Evil (I was helping one of the three guys who nearly killed me two years ago by the end of the month, and refused to press charges against him for shooting+stabbing me), but too fight-happy, amoral, and "Morality is written by the winners" to be Good (Or so others say of me.).

I respectfully disagree. I think we both see this stuff as a spectrum, there are many different levels where people are marginally better than the one before, or marginally worse. Trying to cut that into good or neutral is a lot of finagling. Now personally, I see actually labeling someone as Good means that this person does stand head and shoulders above the rest. Not nice, not better, this individual is actually Good. Now that doesn't mean they have to be a saint, but they have to try, to put in the effort to be better.

That's just how I see it anyway.

You've not seen just how much you take for granted 'good' behaviors. Try living in a bad neighborhood for a few years. Good and Evil start to stand out action-wise, but tend to muddy individual-wise.

[SiuiS]

Which makes it kind of pointless asking "what is your RL alignment". This isn't Planescape... there are no factions. Who am I aligned with? Nobody.

Pish-posh, that's only true if you take "align" and "faction" in a way that's literal to the point of absurdity.

Living saint? Nah, but for me you have to be active in your good-ness. A normal person, will say, give a beggar some cash or food. Or hold a door open for someone behind them. Or any minor little things that just come up. A good person at least tries to take steps to be good or better than they otherwise were. That's where I fail, in my mind. If something comes up, I'll generally speaking step up. But I've never gone looking to help others.

Well, I fail there, and my general enjoyment at laughing at people when they screw up.

One needs must distinguish between a choice and a rote. People give money not because it's a good deed, but because people accept is as a good deed and it allows one to pass on responsibility. Money isn't a good thing, money is an excuse.

As a total aside, I don't give money, and make a point of saying so directly when people approach me with a hand out. I've bought someone food, gas, I've given clothes off my back, and similar. But that's direct, and makes sure that they get help if they need it and neatly avoids the people who are in the same spot, every day, drink as sin, and always asking for 63 cents to make the bus to get to their baby-daddy's to pick up their kid.

[MrConsideration]

Chaotic Good, maaaaaan.

Or at least, I try to be Good, and I'm reasonably sure I'm not actively Evil.

[Erik Vale]

I would say somewhere between TN and CE.
*Does Test*
I got a Error. So apparently I'm Far Realms.

[SiuiS]

You've not seen just how much you take for granted 'good' behaviors. Try living in a bad neighborhood for a few years. Good and Evil start to stand out action-wise, but tend to muddy individual-wise.

Maybe. Hmm. Actually I think I was going to respond to the quote you quoted? Heh.

I think something that should be noted, several something's really, is that you won't necessarily like a good person; a good person won't necessarily like you; good does not preclude selfishness or aggression.

We think of good people in the alignment sense as like, being good, man. But we don't realize that they may well hate is for out failings. For our allowing racism and bigotry. For our prejudices we are blind to. For being functionally just another wicked wheel in the machinery, our clique dismissing and insulting everyone else's clique just like every other clique does, and how from the outside it's all useless, stupid and petty, this fighting over points and superiority instead of just being good.

Good will allow redemption, but it won't sit there and sigh laboriously when you declare you're not in the wrong and don't need to be redeemed. It will do to you what it does to all unrepentant and irredeemable wickedness, as severity demands. "there is a harsh white flame at the heart of the Light", they say.

Chaotic Good, maaaaaan.

Or at least, I try to be Good, and I'm reasonably sure I'm not actively Evil.

I do. Not in the overtly moral sense but in the "willingt o do what I feel is right, damn the cost" sense. That directly leads, by hypothetical extension, a sort of selfishness, a narcissism that transcends mere self adulation, and allows for the hypocrisy of accepting that without objective morality you're not really evil, but I am going to punish you anyway.

But I also try for good so, I'm sticking with my Druidic neutrality.

[Killer Angel]

Without using the test, i'd say that I'm certainly Good, and basically lawful, with tendencies toward neutral. Or neutral, with lawful tendencies...
So, LG and/or NG.

[gutza1]

I'm lawful good, but I usually choose good over law.

[Dienekes]

You've not seen just how much you take for granted 'good' behaviors. Try living in a bad neighborhood for a few years. Good and Evil start to stand out action-wise, but tend to muddy individual-wise.

I have. I don't think it's all that relevant, there were still people who took time and resources to help others, many who did not. That does not alter my opinion on where the line is drawn between a decent human being and a Good one.

One needs must distinguish between a choice and a rote. People give money not because it's a good deed, but because people accept is as a good deed and it allows one to pass on responsibility. Money isn't a good thing, money is an excuse.

As a total aside, I don't give money, and make a point of saying so directly when people approach me with a hand out. I've bought someone food, gas, I've given clothes off my back, and similar. But that's direct, and makes sure that they get help if they need it and neatly avoids the people who are in the same spot, every day, drink as sin, and always asking for 63 cents to make the bus to get to their baby-daddy's to pick up their kid.

I agree, mostly. Not entirely relevant to my main point though.

[Ettina]

Chaotic Good

I find it a bit alarming how many Evil alignments there are here. Kind of like how whenever I see a psychopath test posted in a forum, there's always at least some high-scorers...

[SiuiS]

Chaotic Good

I find it a bit alarming how many Evil alignments there are here. Kind of like how whenever I see a psychopath test posted in a forum, there's always at least some high-scorers...

Moral subjectivity will do that. It's not objectively bad to be evil, so people feel it's valid.

Of course, moral objectivity just gets you dogmatic evil people, so maybe the problem is "people" and not "subjective"?


Although honestly I'm less worried about the number of people who ping as evil and more about the lack of insight and actual decision making in the process. But hey.

[DM Nate]

Well, I don't use the same heuristics for each situation, and I find morality to be incredibly subjective. Hence my previously-stated score of TN. (Of course, being objective about morality can also give false "evil" positives.)

[golentan]

Well, I don't use the same heuristics for each situation, and I find morality to be incredibly subjective. Hence my previously-stated score of TN. (Of course, being objective about morality can also give false "evil" positives.)

I don't know. I've always found morality pretty simple to assess. Step 1: Are you taking action that you know will notably harm other people? Step 2: If yes to step 1, are you preventing a greater harm to those other than yourself by your actions, I.E. if I don't take this intervention more people will die? Step 3: If no to step 2, you are committing evil. If yes to step 2, are your actions disproportionate to the harm needed to be inflicted, I.E. shooting a person dead to prevent a property crime? If yes, you are committing evil.

Good is more intangible, admittedly, but in general it's the inverse of evil: Taking actions that will help people. Neutral I'd say is looking out for number 1, not going out of your way to hurt people but also not going out of your way to help people, occasionally helping yourself at the expense of others or giving to benefit people (most often people you know).

[Amphetryon]

I don't know. I've always found morality pretty simple to assess. Step 1: Are you taking action that you know will notably harm other people? Step 2: If yes to step 1, are you preventing a greater harm to those other than yourself by your actions, I.E. if I don't take this intervention more people will die? Step 3: If no to step 2, you are committing evil. If yes to step 2, are your actions disproportionate to the harm needed to be inflicted, I.E. shooting a person dead to prevent a property crime? If yes, you are committing evil.

Good is more intangible, admittedly, but in general it's the inverse of evil: Taking actions that will help people. Neutral I'd say is looking out for number 1, not going out of your way to hurt people but also not going out of your way to help people, occasionally helping yourself at the expense of others or giving to benefit people (most often people you know).

The first issue that generally comes up is lack of consensus on what constitutes 'harm,' and how an action's capacity to harm can be quantified in both the short term and long term. For example, a paladin's heroic smiting of the overlord - who actually pings as Evil - could well set off a chain of events leading to widespread starvation, which sounds a lot like 'harm' regardless of whether or not you give the paladin a pass on killing the overlord in the first place.

[DM Nate]

Also, by that proposed definition, "good" is simply "helping maintain current society." That's not really a moral.

[Tragak]

EasyDamus gave me: Chaotic Neutral (72% Chaotic, 62% Good)
OKCupid didn't show my results, but I feel like the answers I gave there would've gotten a similar rating
HelloQuizzy gave me: Neutral Good (+2 Chaos, -19 Evil, 12 Balance)
MJYoung gave me Chaotic Neutral (61% Chaotic, 55.7% Good)

[golentan]

Also, by that proposed definition, "good" is simply "helping maintain current society." That's not really a moral.

Course not. Society can be harmful to its participants. Good can involve breaking or opposing laws, it just can't involve trying to hurt people more than helping them.

The first issue that generally comes up is lack of consensus on what constitutes 'harm,' and how an action's capacity to harm can be quantified in both the short term and long term. For example, a paladin's heroic smiting of the overlord - who actually pings as Evil - could well set off a chain of events leading to widespread starvation, which sounds a lot like 'harm' regardless of whether or not you give the paladin a pass on killing the overlord in the first place.

Double check. The criteria I used require you to know that you're causing harm. In your scenario, the paladin would have to know that his act would lead to starvation for him to take a ding to his alignment, and wouldn't take the ding if he honestly had reason to believe that hunger would be less damaging to the citizens of the nation than the overlord's rule (not likely, but there are some tyrants in fantasy who are ruthless and cruel enough towards their subjects that it's possible). It's the same reason nonsapient animals can't be anything other than neutral, they lack the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. And harm isn't that hard to define, a pretty good start is "If I ask the person affected how they feel about this happening to them, will they be horrified?" It's not a perfect test (for example, is someone with enough money that their children will never need to work even after the act of theft actually harmed by someone running off with a portion of their money?), but it's a pretty solid one for 99% of situations.

[DM Nate]

Course not. Society can be harmful to its participants. Good can involve breaking or opposing laws, it just can't involve trying to hurt people more than helping them.

Wait, so you're saying that you are allowed to reject the norms of society in order to bring about what your personal code deems "best" for other individuals?

And how is this different from "evil"?

[Amphetryon]

Double check. The criteria I used require you to know that you're causing harm. In your scenario, the paladin would have to know that his act would lead to starvation for him to take a ding to his alignment, and wouldn't take the ding if he honestly had reason to believe that hunger would be less damaging to the citizens of the nation than the overlord's rule (not likely, but there are some tyrants in fantasy who are ruthless and cruel enough towards their subjects that it's possible). It's the same reason nonsapient animals can't be anything other than neutral, they lack the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. And harm isn't that hard to define, a pretty good start is "If I ask the person affected how they feel about this happening to them, will they be horrified?" It's not a perfect test (for example, is someone with enough money that their children will never need to work even after the act of theft actually harmed by someone running off with a portion of their money?), but it's a pretty solid one for 99% of situations.

1. "Know you're causing harm" allows for willful ignorance, unless you're going to further refine your definition. Stubbornly refusing to consider the outcome of your actions should not allow for them to be Good on the cosmic scale. By your definition, involuntary manslaughter is never Evil, for example, while the paladin I described knows he's committing murder and should fall. Granted, I've seen some alignment debates that essentially concluded that any paladin who uses lethal force should instantly fall, but. . . .

2. Your definition of "harm" clearly works. . . for you. It's not a universal definition, and I'll go on record as believing the margin of difference of opinion is a good bit higher than the 1% you're positing.

[Inevitability]

I would say somewhere between TN and CE.
*Does Test*
I got a Error. So apparently I'm Far Realms.

Far Realms alignment added.

And because I like percentages:

So far a little over 30% of the posters is Lawful, exactly 50% is Neutral (on the Law-Chaos axis), and a little under 20% are Chaotic.

Additionally, a little above 42% of the posters is Good, just as many are Neutral (on the Good-Evil axis) and a little above 15% is Evil.

So that means that if this forum is an indication, 3 out of 20 people would happily harm or even kill others to get what they want. Have fun sleeping tonight.

[golentan]

DM Nate: Because helping people is judged by what the recipient of the help desires?

Amphetryon: How is "Harm is that which the recipient finds harmful" not universal? And willful ignorance requires one to be aware of the facts you're denying, which would in this case ping (you're trying to rationalize away your harm rather than being unaware of it).

Speaking of willful ignorance...

[Sartharina]

Course not. Society can be harmful to its participants. Good can involve breaking or opposing laws, it just can't involve trying to hurt people more than helping them.

Unless they're someone who needs/deserves to be hurt. Good isn't "Be a doormat".