Alignment Chart: Self-Perception Vs Others' Perception

[Pokemon Fanfiction Novels]

S'up.

So, do you know how there are all these various quizzes that you can take that tell you what character you are on certain video games, shows, and movies? When you're meeting new people on forum boards for the first time, I suppose displaying quiz results is somewhat helpful when establishing Internet relations. However, I think the Alignment Chart is more timeless and ultimately accurate, and it permeates all genres. For those of you who aren't familiar, the traditional chart takes the form of a tic-tac-toe spread with nine identities:

Lawful Good- You follow the law because you believe it exists to make life better for all. (Eddard Stark)
Neutral Good- You try to spread as much goodwill for others as you can, however you can. (Moana)
Chaotic Good- You believe doing the right thing is not bound by law, but by personal decisions. (Robin Hood)
Lawful Neutral- You follow the law, for better or for worse, because order is necessary for society. (*Insert-Moderator-Here*)
True Neutral- You do stuff because everyone else seems into it. (Any trend slave ever)
Chaotic Neutral- You do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, and see authority as a nuisance. (Jack Sparrow)
Lawful Evil- You use the law as a means to take advantage of others. (Claude Frollo)
Neutral Evil- You do whatever you want, no matter how hurtful, if you know you can get away with it. (Cruella DeVil)
Chaotic Evil- You do whatever you want, no matter how hurtful, and nobody can tell you otherwise. (Maleficent)

Please take these descriptors with a grain of salt. They aren't entirely accurate, but they're my best paraphrase at the moment. Why did I post this? Excellent question, Me. I think it's an interesting experiment in perception. I seriously doubt many of us would identify as one of the "evils," and if you did, you're either being humorously ironic, or you're days from being banhammered by a mod. But they're there, because even in the likely event that you don't consider yourself an Evil, someone else in your life might. For instance, I don't buy into the idea of having to use someone's preferred gender pronoun even if they want me to, and I consider myself Neutral Good on the basis that free will is the ultimate, inviolable sacred gift. But no doubt, someone may think I'm really Neutral Evil because I take perverse pleasure in denying their self-identity. Anyway, let's not get swept up in that debate; I'm simply using a modern example.

So, if you've ever thought about where you stand in your life-alignment, my question to you is this: for the most part, does your self-perception match what others see in you? And, if you've gone that extra step further beyond self-perception, did it change the way you saw yourself?

Heh, maybe "small" talk wasn't the right thread for this.

 

[Shiny Motley]

I don't agree with some of your examples for the alignments, but moving on...

I really enjoy thinking about the alignment chart in general, since it literally adds a dimension on top of the usual "good" and "evil", though what constitutes as good and evil differ from person to person, hence variability in each person's charts and interpretations of characters.

Furthermore, unlike characters in a story, real people are rarely if ever sharply split between being good or evil, and even between lawful or good. Our motivations are complex, our sense of ethics and morals difficult to grasp. This can commonly be seen in the fun "trolley problem"-type scenarios. So to put a person into the two dimensions of "lawful versus chaotic" and "good versus evil" is really oversimplifying who we are, and fails to communicate how we actually make decisions and whatnot.

Few if any people will ever truly view themselves as evil, because we all have some form of a moral compass we follow. Maybe they use extreme methods for what they believe to be the greater good, maybe they lash out because they believe they've been hurt or wronged somehow and need to prove otherwise. At most, people might consider themselves neutral: self-preservation and caring for those in their immediate circle will likely be their top priority, and they won't seek to actively hurt others unless it was to help their circle or themselves.

However, the concept of "evil" is rarely one we apply to ourselves, but instead one many people would readily apply to others. Someone might think anyone who doesn't share the same religious beliefs as them is evil. Or maybe they think all politicians are evil, or those who work only for themselves as evil. There are definitely concepts people consider evil- racism, bigotry, sexism- but god forbid you call someone out for supporting any of these. Me, a racist? Preposterous, I have a *insert random race here* friend! I am a pure cinnamon roll, I can't do anything wrong uwu.

So to answer your question - I see myself as anywhere in the Neutral Good to Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral zone, though there are people who would argue I'm Lawful Good/Neutral because I help mod some communities. My parents probably see me as chaotic good with some chaotic evil tendencies (I've ran away from home several times and, gasp, I'm in the LGBT+ community!), a good portion of my rl friends see me as chaotic good... but what matters most is that my rabbit sees me as the force of all that is good, as I provide him with a very good home and shelter, plenty of food and water, and safety from the scary sirens and dogs around us.

 

[Aura]

I've taken these quizzes before and always come out as Chaotic Good. However I think morality is far too complicated to break down onto a two factor scale and this is only used for the sake of simplicity and brevity, and trying to use it as a measuring stick for actual morality is questionable. Secondly, how exactly am I to know other's perceptions of myself? I've only got one viewpoint in my life - my own - and you can't really place yourself in their eyes truly to understand how they feel without them explicitly telling you, or you doing something you know to be a dick move because it's pointlessly cruel, such as in the example you provided. Besides, we're talking multiple people here with multiple different viewpoints so it will vary highly. But, problems with the question aside, I'll try and answer from the perspective of people I'm close friends with.

... Is what I'd like to say but as I cannot for the life of me figure out what my close friends would view me as on a scale like this. Only thing I can really bring up is that when I mentioned the results of one of these quizzes to a friend, he first guessed that I was Lawful Good, which I can kind of see but I think a better explanation for that is that some of the laws in this country happen to align with my own moral compass, rather than me following them because they are laws. Obeying something just because it comes from a position of authority strikes me as rather silly - you should critically analyze their stance first, because they're human too and just as mistake prone as you are. As for the good thing, well, in my opinion my motivations in life are disgustingly noble so I do feel that is accurate, but again it depends on who you ask.

 

[Psycho Monkey]

I want to say I'm Chaotic Neutral but I'm too altruistic which would place me in Chaotic Good. But I also have zero respect for authority unless they earn my respect or social norms unless I personally agree with them which makes me Chaotic Neutral. You see where I'm going here? I consider myself Chaotic Neutral because I do as I please when I please. I won't actively break rules or go against them for no reason but don't expect me to follow them if I don't agree with them. I fully embrace my animal instincts because natural law is superior in every way to human law. Why? Because human laws are ridged, restrictive, and some are even outdated or just plain stupid. Natural law however has been refined over millions of years, billions if we delve into universal law, and will continue to be refined so long as life and the universe continues to exist. Our instincts and our minds are our greatest weapons and our bodies are are own to do what we want with no matter what some fuckface in a fancy suit bought with your money might say. I believe in absolute freedom so long as no one gets hurt or inconvenienced. Also, censorship is bullshit. I will only censor myself out of respect but, again, because I want to not because I'm told to. You shouldn't have to be told to be respectful, it should just be something you inherently do. I could go on but I might start getting political and fuck talking about politics because that isn't what this topic is about.

As you might have noticed in my rant, my Chaotic Good side showed a bit as well. There is nothing in this world I value more than the sanctity of life. I love life. Life is beautiful. My desire for absolute freedom actually goes hand in hand with a good quality of life. If humans were free to choose their destinies and not oppressed by societal expectations, people would be much happier, less homicidal, and our societies might actually flourish instead of stagnating. And I'm not just talking about my life or human life here, ALL life. Every life is precious. Spiders are cute and I will take them outside before I let my brother, sister-in-law, or parents kill it. I don't believe in the needless killing of any lifeform. Killing should only be done for food or for defense but only as a last resort in the latter example. I know I am but just one man and can't save the world on my own but I still do what I can to help others and make life easier for them. I'm a storm of loyalty for those who earn my loyalty. Fuck the law and the law makers, I'm doing what's right for the benefit of the world. You show me red tape and I'll get out my scissors. Is that my Chaotic Neutral side showing again?

*Takes a deep breath* I think that's more of a self-demonstration of my self-perception than I intended. That's enough of my philosophy on morality for one night.

Oh right, I forgot to add in other's perceptions of me. Frankly, I don't give a damn. I am me and they won't change that. If they like me the way I am, awesome. If they don't, too bad for them.

 

[KoL]

You already know what I am.

 

[StellarWind Elsydeon]

“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”


- Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, "Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch"​

Here's the thing with alignment charts. They serve as a good start when developing a fictional character. But human beings (as well as truly developed characters as opposed to two-dimensional NPCs) very rarely operate along linear axes, and "Good vs Evil" and "Lawful vs Chaotic" as a whole are not only fairly subjective (and I can see that you have acknowledged the perception/relativism thing in your initial post, so no real need to reiterate this), but they can also both lead to a whole lot of shenanigans once you play with them enough.

First issue of course is the definitions you use for 'Good and Evil' or 'Law and Chaos' - because those are definitely not black-and-white dichotomies and they're fairly complex when you look at. You can look at Good and Evil as encompassing Benevolence/Malevolence, Altruism/Selfishness and a certain scale of Willingness to Do Harm. You can look at Law and Chaos as encompassing both Views on Authority and Dogmatic Thinking versus Wild Creativity and throw in its implications regarding logic, correlation and causation and all the rest of that lovely stuff. Once you expand the definitions you can easily find that even without the points in which people differ in perception, all these sub-scales can shift a lot within one person - both in regards to certain issues or over time.

Thus you have decent people standing by when great evils take place and people committing atrocities in the name of what they consider the greater good (whether or not they are later hailed as heroes or villains often depends on what side of history you're on).

Thus you have people adamantly defending concepts that are benevolent or altruistic (arguably "good") on a surface level but that end up causing a great deal of harm for others (there are all sorts of ways this can happen: partial implementation, being twisted by others using it to their own ends, the perception of acceptable losses on the way to something greater - whatever the cause, the end result is that a lot of bad shit happens and thus at least according to some definitions of good, the end result is NOT "good"). There are numerous reasons for this - ignorance, denial, entirely separating an idea from how it is implemented, internal biases, holding one's own views in a higher regard than anyone else's, amount of tolerance for collateral damage - surely one could think of many others.

Thus you have people who are so dogmatic/dichotomous in thought (a very "lawful" trait) that they take "good" causes such as freedom, equality, diversity and social justice and corrupt them, using their relative "good" as a shield to very maliciously attack people for not being "good" enough for their standards - y'know, the approach of "Pure vs. Problematic" that has turned Tumblr into the sad joke it is these days. People who become the exact sort of thing they hate and aren't even realizing it because their belief that they're on the side of "good" exempts them - in their mind - from being accountable for their decisively evil - or at least, flagrantly assholish - behaviour.

That's basically the thing, isn't it? Accountability. Can you truly call yourself good if your actions or beliefs are used to harm others? Especially when you are aware of this and know that you are capable of putting aside your own personal views and biases for one damn moment to not commit a malicious act towards another, because maybe their well being and your respect for them should matter to you more than a generally-good ideal? Because if you ask me, no, you can't. You just can't put yourself on a dichotomy like this, not truly at least.

Of course it can get situational - there's a difference between putting your "good" beliefs aside for a moment to avoid hurting a person and fighting fiercely to stand up for your "good" beliefs in taking action against atrocities. The reality of the situation is that in most cases, regarding most things, there is an interplay of forces - conscious and subconscious - that affects and informs decisions and choices people may choose or may be forced to take, and they're far more complicated than good/evil or lawful/chaotic - and they definitely don't always fall into the same damn bracket. You can be a good person but not be a paragon of "good" ideals. You can consider a lot of arbitrary manmade rules to be outdated, outmoded and sometimes outright harmful but still acknowledge the necessity of frameworks of rules in order to keep a society operational, struggle against certain rules and operate to improve them. And you can absolutely Do No Harm But Take No Shit as a general framework but know when to be stricter and when to be kinder (and no, I don't mean German children, gog knows I have to deal with too many kids around here, regardless of nationality).

Tl;dr, in the immortal words of a certain wise man on many arbitrary man-made distinctions....

“It's all bullshit, folks. It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya.”

- George Carlin​

 

[Dwayna DragonFire]

If you're looking for a good Alignment test, you'll probably want the easydamus site if you search on Google. If you're curious as to where you fall on the spectrum, it shows how many points you scored in Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil. The site also offers in depth looks at what alignment means, and even has a 'tendencies' section for a few alignments in between the nine. Here's a short rundown: "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

Humans are much more diverse than the test or the nine alignments give them credit for, but it was intended for a tabletop RPG. As Stel pointed out, all of these things are very subjective. That being said, if I had to slot myself into a label, I'd put myself in the Lawful Neutral category. I believe in my government, I believe that there needs to be structure in things, I have a strong moral code that I want to follow at all costs. Others may perceive me as Lawful Good because I tend to be very selfless and caring, but I know that I have a selfish side. I don't think religion or sexuality has anything to do with alignment as it was intended; however, your opinions or actions regarding such would count towards the spectrum.