Your RL alignment?

[DM Nate]

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

The recipient of the help desires that fewer people of minority exist in his neighborhood.

So does everyone on his block.

[Sartharina]

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...

Because:
1. We're not psychic. I can take a lot of stuff that others would consider 'harmful'
2. By that definition, any parent who tells their child to clean their room on a regular basis or go to school is Evil. Some people treat beneficial things as 'harmful', because it pushes them out of the comfort zone of mediocrity and non-accomplishment.

[golentan]

The recipient of the help desires that fewer people of minority exist in his neighborhood.

So does everyone on his block.

Doing so in most ways I can imagine would harm the minorities in question, to uncertain benefit to the recipient. Harm > Good. Helping him in this way would be an evil act, whereas gently guiding him to acceptance of others would satisfy his underlying desire (to not be made uncomfortable by minorities in his neighborhood) and at the same time help the minorities gain acceptance (helping them). Everybody wins.

[DM Nate]

Doing so in most ways I can imagine would harm the minorities in question, to uncertain benefit to the recipient. Harm > Good. Helping him in this way would be an evil act, whereas gently guiding him to acceptance of others would satisfy his underlying desire (to not be made uncomfortable by minorities in his neighborhood) and at the same time help the minorities gain acceptance (helping them). Everybody wins.

Minorities are called such because they're in the minority. More people want to hurt/harm them than people that don't. He doesn't WANT your help to satisfy what you think is his underlying desire. And to assert that what the majority wants is "wrong" is a moral judgment that you are making, independent of what the majority asserts.

Which goes to show, as I said, that morality is subjective.

[golentan]

Because:
1. We're not psychic. I can take a lot of stuff that others would consider 'harmful'
2. By that definition, any parent who tells their child to clean their room on a regular basis or go to school is Evil. Some people treat beneficial things as 'harmful', because it pushes them out of the comfort zone of mediocrity and non-accomplishment.

Disciplining a child up to a point better equips them to deal with the world as it is, giving them a net benefit to life. The initial definition I used would qualify this as a "mitigating circumstance," a small harm to do a greater good.

Also, what's wrong with mediocrity? Half of people are below average, doesn't make them bad people or less worthy of respect. Even in a world of superheroes, someone would need to take the garbage out.

[Inevitability]

Also, what's wrong with mediocrity? Half of people are below average, doesn't make them bad people or less worthy of respect. Even in a world of superheroes, someone would need to take the garbage out.

For that, we have Garbage Guy!

[golentan]

Minorities are called such because they're in the minority. More people want to hurt/harm them than people that don't. He doesn't WANT your help to satisfy what you think is his underlying desire. And to assert that what the majority wants is "wrong" is a moral judgment that you are making, independent of what the majority asserts.

Which goes to show, as I said, that morality is subjective.

No, it goes to show you're trying to obfuscate the issue. A majority vote does not make hurting people right. It means that the majority are trying to hurt people for their own perceived benefit, and are thus behaving in an evil way.

[Nagash]

According to this test, I turn out True Neutral.

EDIT: Oh, with a slight bent towards Chaotic Evil.

According to that I'm neutral evil.

[DM Nate]

No, it goes to show you're trying to obfuscate the issue. A majority vote does not make hurting people right. It means that the majority are trying to hurt people for their own perceived benefit, and are thus behaving in an evil way.

Evil by whose definition? Yours? Where do you get your definition of help vs. harm? This society states "help them" = "give them what they want." Your definition is "make them all change to accept people they don't like."

Is your definition better than theirs? Why? What makes it better, other than your believing that it is better?

[Amphetryon]

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).

I can think of multiple examples where the recipient's perception of what's causing them harm is a poor indicator. Kids eating their vegetables/cleaning their room is the easy one. So is the boss requiring a salaried person to come in to work rather than going to an important family event; I'll wager the family dynamic with the kids gets harmed, subtly, every time that happens.

Other examples will likely come closer to running afoul of the real-world politics/religion area that we're not to discuss on this forum.

[golentan]

Evil by whose definition? Yours? Where do you get your definition of help vs. harm? This society states "help them" = "give them what they want." Your definition is "make them all change to accept people they don't like."

Is your definition better than theirs? Why? What makes it better, other than your believing that it is better?

Helping people makes them feel better, meets their needs for food, companionship, shelter, and all of the other things that makes life livable, and helps them survive in the world while respecting their idiosyncracies and differences from yourself. In the example given, the slight benefit to the majority is a matter of comfort, while the issue for the minorities was one of survival (without a stable living environment, with the negative attentions of a hostile majority, an inability to survive is a real threat). Comfort is impossible without survival, survival is not impossible without comfort, survival trumps comfort in the calculus of good. A single human life is worth more than most other concerns, because without life there's no way to help someone. The fact you tried to invoke this as an example implies to me that you understand this and are being obstreperous and obstructive rather than truly believing it. And further discussion here is likely to edge into politics, so I'm going to stop reading this thread to avoid temptation.

[Leviting]

I got lawful evil from a that test (though from a different site, I think), though I tend to see myself as lawful neutral. That is, until I remember that I have difficulty feeling any noticeable form of empathy or guilt.

[Sith_Happens]

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

I don't know about in general, but I'd be surprised if anyone came up as CN on the quiz in the second post, since that quiz is based on 1e AD&D where CN is the "certifiably insane" alignment.

[Tragak]

If anybody else is having trouble with the OKCupid link, the same test is on HelloQuizzy and working better

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the...nt-calculator/

[Razanir]

LG or LN. I've gotten both on tests.

Unless we're talking Civilization. Then I'm NE. I generally play by the rules of diplomacy, but I can be sadistic and Machiavellian at times. Marching GDRs against musketmen, backstabbing allies for diplomatic gain, eliminating an entire civilization in only 20 turns...

[Dienekes]

If anybody else is having trouble with the OKCupid link, the same test is on HelloQuizzy and working better

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the...nt-calculator/

Yay, now I know that I am... True Neutral. With slight tendencies toward law and good. So what I expected.

I am curious how some of these questions play out. For instance, I have no desire to start a romantic relationship, sex is nice and all, but hardly worth the obsession people seem to have for it, while money can be used for many useful things. So of the three I chose money. I have no idea how that at all reflects whether I'm good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.

[Aedilred]

I did the test and came out Lawful Good, very narrowly over neutrality in both axes. Whether that means I've improved as a person since I last took that test or whether it just varies depending what day it is and I can't guarantee to put in the same answers every time, who knows. In any case it tends to confirm my original assumption about my alignment, albeit slightly further from central than I initially thought.

[Sith_Happens]

If anybody else is having trouble with the OKCupid link, the same test is on HelloQuizzy and working better

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the...nt-calculator/

According to this then, my 1e alignment is on the fence between NG and LG. Definitely different.

[QuintonBeck]

I almost always (and this time around on this quiz was no different) come out as Lawful Neutral on alignment quizzes and in this case with the caveat of some Evil and Balance tendencies which doesn't surprise me either. People say Lawful Neutral is boring, but Lawful Neutral builds nations and LN characters are tons of fun to play (for me anyway) Being reasonable and decent without the restrictions and baggage that comes with LG and able to make some more questionable decisions for the sake of order without tilting over into full super villain LE.

[Taet]

Chaotic Neutral
18 chaos, -1 evil and 14 balance
Lots of high answers for good and for evil. It is the middle of the possibilities and not the possibility I pick.
The separate balance was very interesting idea for alignment.

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

[...]

According to the test, I'm a Far Realm, but I like to think of myself as LN/LE. To put it straight, I'm planning to be a lawyer for the sole purpose of getting money. I really don't care if my actions let the guilty get away without punishment or give the innocent undue suffering as long as it doesn't get me in jail.

[Ettina]

Helping people makes them feel better, meets their needs for food, companionship, shelter, and all of the other things that makes life livable, and helps them survive in the world while respecting their idiosyncracies and differences from yourself. In the example given, the slight benefit to the majority is a matter of comfort, while the issue for the minorities was one of survival (without a stable living environment, with the negative attentions of a hostile majority, an inability to survive is a real threat). Comfort is impossible without survival, survival is not impossible without comfort, survival trumps comfort in the calculus of good. A single human life is worth more than most other concerns, because without life there's no way to help someone. The fact you tried to invoke this as an example implies to me that you understand this and are being obstreperous and obstructive rather than truly believing it. And further discussion here is likely to edge into politics, so I'm going to stop reading this thread to avoid temptation.

How about anything that interferes with that person's fulfilment of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? And the lower on the scale it is, the worse it is to interfere with?

http://therecoveringpolitician.com/w...y-of-Needs.jpg

When weighing two different people's needs/wants, whoever is affected at a lower level on the hierarchy takes precedence. If they're affected at the same level, go for the majority.

So in the example of the majority wanting to discriminate, you might put the majority's desire on the 'Social' or 'Esteem' level, depending on their reasons. Whereas the implications of discrimination for the minority are pretty clearly at the 'Safety' or even 'Physiological' level.

[Angel Bob]

Using the HelloQuizzy test, I get Lawful Neutral/Good, which is... interesting. I don't really see myself as more Lawful than Chaotic. Politically, sure, I'm pretty Lawful, but I don't give blind obedience to the state. I do have a strong sense of what's right and what's wrong, but I'd like to think that I'm wise enough to consider things on a case-by-case basis instead of defaulting to some rigid moral system. I would have thought I'd score more than -6 Chaos; I like to be spontaneous and keep plenty of free time in my life, and too much structure stresses me out.

A Neutral/Good alignment is right on, though. I do love playing the villain, and I don't bend over backwards to help people, but ultimately, I do have a conscience. Which is a shame, since Evil is so much fun!

All in all, I guess I'm not convinced of this test's accuracy. The questions are either vague or have really blatant answers. Eh. I guess I prefer the EasyDamus one.

[SiuiS]

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.)

Of course. Every situation must be critically judged on it's own merits. That's hard for a lot of people though, which is why good is so rare, they say; most people will resort to heuristics and not actually think it through. Rules to fall back on.

One must always be mindful.

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"?

It is different from evil in the way "best" is defined. Pretty simple really.

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.

I always do!

Self defense knowledge means never having to fear a random invasion of home.

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

There's a valid moral frame from which it can be said no one ever needs to be hurt.

Evil by whose definition? Yours? Where do you get your definition of help vs. harm? This society states "help them" = "give them what they want." Your definition is "make them all change to accept people they don't like."

Is your definition better than theirs? Why? What makes it better, other than your believing that it is better?

Alreay handled, sir Nate. See;

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 our 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.

They're free to say 'but morality is subjective!' All yrreG like. They will still be smote.

[MLai]

This question is skewed due to the fact that we're mostly all law-abiding citizens because we don't want to get fined/ go to jail, regardless our personal "alignment." Years of living this way can give us delusions about our own "goodness."
For example, I consider myself a neutral-to-good person IRL. But I know that if I had a genie wish that made me God-Emperor of Earth with no possibility of repercussions, I would start doing whatever the **** I want. And some of those things can start getting pretty extreme.

They're free to say 'but morality is subjective!' All yrreG like. They will still be smote.

This sounds like an in-character or a dogmatic assertion, rather than a debate on morality. "I don't care what you think/ say. I don't have to think about it; I know you'll be smote because--" *thumps on religious text of choice*

I don't have to raise IRL examples for you to realize that can get real evil real quick.

[Sartharina]

I don't have to raise IRL examples for you to realize that can get real evil real quick.

Which is why Cosmic Good is as hostile to life as Cosmic Evil is - it has no room for mortal failures and foibles (Because those are inherently wrong, and screw up people's lives)

[Jeff the Green]

I dislike that quiz—it pegs me at NG leaning LG, but I tend to think of myself as LN. First, it doesn't do a good job of measuring lawfulness as adherence to a personal doctrine. Second, the fact that I haven't taken drastic measures that would put me solidly in the "doing Evil for Good ends" camp is because I don't have the personal power to do so without consequences far worse than the status quo.

[SiuiS]

This question is skewed due to the fact that we're mostly all law-abiding citizens because we don't want to get fined/ go to jail, regardless our personal "alignment." Years of living this way can give us delusions about our own "goodness."
For example, I consider myself a neutral-to-good person IRL. But I know that if I had a genie wish that made me God-Emperor of Earth with no possibility of repercussions, I would start doing whatever the **** I want. And some of those things can start getting pretty extreme.

Yup. We are conditioned to accept our society.

I find it odd that everyone is like "I would totally become wicked and evil if I was omnipotent". Alignment is what you are when no one is watching. Is no one else actually good?

This sounds like an in-character or a dogmatic assertion, rather than a debate on morality. "I don't care what you think/ say. I don't have to think about it; I know you'll be smote because--" *thumps on religious text of choice*

Strawman. "I don't care what you think or say" is not part of the statement. This sort of reduction by stripping detail and context is what prompted the response to self-justification in the first place.

Which is why Cosmic Good is as hostile to life as Cosmic Evil is - it has no room for mortal failures and foibles (Because those are inherently wrong, and screw up people's lives)

Yep ! Beig good aligned means that you are in the same club or army or cult as the wrathful angels which descend on the planes with swords of fire and beatific smiles, not that you're moral.

[Jeff the Green]

I find it odd that everyone is like "I would totally become wicked and evil if I was omnipotent". Alignment is what you are when no one is watching. Is no one else actually good?

In my case, it's more a matter of my ethics not lining up with D&D's. My preferred system is a combination of utilitarianism and virtue ethics (with a highly egoistic metaethics behind it), which is quite different from the deontological ethics of D&D.

The reason I say I don't do much Evil because I don't have the personal power is that some of the things that I think would help the world would set a really bad precedent if people thought they could get away with them. If someone assassinates a large number of politicians, it serves as evidence that it's open season on politicians, and that's not something I want to encourage. If a bunch of politicians suddenly drop dead from clearly natural causes (actually caused by magic/psychic powers/whatever) there is no precedent.

[Boci]

Lawful neutral with rare chaotic tendencies. I'm not devoting my life to help others, I can be selfish, but I've never done anything truly evil by the standards of D&D or my society. I like civilization and try to follow the rules, but sometimes I've had enough and need to let off some steam.

I find it odd that everyone is like "I would totally become wicked and evil if I was omnipotent". Alignment is what you are when no one is watching.

Those two things are completely different. Of course alignment is what we are when no one is watching, but that has nothing to do with being all powerful. The idea that being all powerful makes you evil is an established trope at this point, but there is logic behind it. It is based on these two points:

1. The assumption that being all powerful will not remove your human biases, or if it does, it will merely replace them with a new set
2. It will be impossibly to value the opinion of other, non-omnipotent beings, and as such you will gradually start to believe only you are right, which will lead to you being evil.

That at least is my understanding of the process, and it makes sense to me.