# D&D Alignments and Hogwarts Houses



## Arthrospira

Ok, so I’ve never played D&D or watched Harry Potter but seeing all those people with their fancy signs talking about that stuff makes me jealous. Can someone tell me how I can find those things about myself? I’m definitely a Lawful something but have no idea about the rest.

Thank you!


----------



## Rong Wong

Alignment test ...
Alignment Test

Hogwarts house sorter ...
Harry Potter - Sorting Hat House Quiz


----------



## Arthrospira

Rong Wong said:


> Alignment test ...
> Alignment Test
> 
> Hogwarts house sorter ...
> Harry Potter - Sorting Hat House Quiz


Well that’s the problem, my results are too in the middle. One question made it change between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral.

As for the hogwarts:

Gryffindor - 11
Ravenclaw - 11
Hufflepuff - 10
Slytherin - 1


----------



## leftover crack

Your in-depth results are:


Ravenclaw - 12
Hufflepuff - 11
Slytherin - 9
Gryffindor - 8

Seems like every single test out there is determined to keep me intp


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr

Neutral good. 

Hufflepuff - 13
Ravenclaw - 11
Gryffindor - 10
Slytherin - 8



Hufflepuff - 13
Ravenclaw - 11
Gryffindor - 10
Slytherin - 8​


----------



## Kitsune Love

There's tests for all that stuff, but I think looking into alignments and actually getting an idea and a feel for what it's all about, it'll be easier to put yourself under one alignment. 

Lawfulness is also considered "order" (Which makes sense when you think Order vs Chaos)

In terms of the spectrum of Good - Neutral - Evil. Think of it this way:
Good = Heroic
Neutral = Mercenary
Evil = Villainous

Lawful Good: Deeply honour-bound people who go out of their way to help others. They will almost always proceed using "by-the-book" methods. 

Neutral Good: People who go out of their way to help other people but they're not restricted by certain rules or codes that a Lawful Good might follow. 

Chaotic Good: These are the darker vigilante types. The anti-heroes. Think the Punisher. The world is full of injustice, and who else is willing to get their hands dirty in order to do the right thing?

Lawful Neutral: These people TEND to be more morally objective. They have a code based on integrity that they follow and they tend to look at the facts and make a decision as to whether something is right or acceptable. These characters are known as "The Judge" 

True Neutral: This person doesn't live by chaos or order, good or bad. Their focus on survival on an almost base level, they do what they need to do for themselves and for their family. 

Chaotic Neutral: These characters are very spontaneous or sporadic. They're in it for themselves and their personal freedom, they're either incredibly lucky or charismatic and skilful to get their way. This don't mean they wouldn't have the heart or respect for someone else, however. They're not evil, even if they may be mistaken for bad/selfish people sometimes.

Lawful Evil: A person with bad intentions, but they do follow a code of honour. There are certain things they wont do: eg. Refusing to throw their partners under the bus, or refusing to hurt women or children. They still have evil or morally corrupt plans though, and they will follow through on those plans.

Neutral Evil: This person is probably the most vanilla villain, doing evil for the sake of evil. They don't follow any Honorable code, but they're not "chaotic" either. They're entirely in it for themselves and they don't trust anyone besides themselves. They're also probably the most dangerous BECAUSE they don't fall under order or chaos and therefore they're unpredictable. 

Chaotic Evil: This is someone who is scattered and psychotic. They love the mess and the chaos they can cause, they love it. They have no problem hurting others and take an immense amount of pleasure in just instilling fear and chaos. Tyrian Callows from RWBY is a very good example.


----------



## Rong Wong

Arthrospira said:


> Well that’s the problem, my results are too in the middle. One question made it change between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral.


Perhaps you could read the descriptions to see which one you relate the most to.


## EDIT
Or just read @Nightstorm 's excellent post.


----------



## Jaune

I am Slytherin and Chaotic Neutral.

I always score Slytherin high above the other houses in that test (and any Hogwarts House test), but I always get Chaotic Evil on the D&D test. I don't really identify with Chaotic Evil, though.


----------



## Arthrospira

Nightstorm said:


> In terms of the spectrum of Good - Neutral - Evil. Think of it this way:
> Good = Heroic
> Neutral = *Mercenary*
> Evil = Villainous
> 
> Lawful Good: Deeply honour-bound people who go out of their way to help others. They will almost always proceed using "by-the-book" methods.
> 
> Lawful Neutral: These people TEND to be more morally objective. They have a code based on integrity that they follow and they tend to look at the facts and make a decision as to whether something is right or acceptable. These characters are known as "The Judge"


I think I’d be Lawful Neutral according to those descriptions since the first definition sounds more similar to Enneagram 2. I only go out of my way to help someone if I’m convinced that they DO need the help (for instance I wouldn’t give a lazy student my homework to copy or make someone pancakes but I usually give people a lift to their home even if it’s outside my route and regularly give to charity).

Does mercenary mean as in someone who fights for whoever has the money because I despise such people very much.


easydamus.com said:


> Conflict between lawful neutral and lawful good characters will center around the nature of laws. *Lawful good characters want laws to protect the weak and punish the wicked*, while *lawful neutral *characters are only interested in maintaining or expanding laws to cover every foreseeable problem within society *without compassion or moral judgment*.
> 
> A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. *He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.* He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, *and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.*
> 
> Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and *compassion*.
> 
> *A lawful neutral* character acts as law, tradition, or a *personal code directs her.* Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
> 
> Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.


What if I am an Enneagram 1 obsessed with moral judgement and have a personal code based on that but don’t have much compassion and only care about justice, promoting the “good” and opposing the perceived “evils”?


----------



## Vesh

I'm Neutral Good. I generally follow the law because I think laws are useful for an organized society, but I'll break it if I disagree with it and there's no danger in breaking it for either myself or others.

Maybe I'm wrong but I've always felt neutral morality is more about self-interest (Chaotic Neutral) or adherence to an external moral code despite lack of real conviction in it (Lawful Neutral). A chaotic neutral person won't do anything solely for the sake of hurting people, has *some* moral standards that are highly personal to them, but might bend those standards for the sake of getting something out of it. I think of it as the kind of people who are generally good in relationships but might slip up and cheat once or twice because the occasion was too good to pass up and don't feel all too guilty about it. A lawful neutral might be someone who doesn't legitimately believe weed is wrong but still reports a friend for selling weed because "it's illegal". True Neutrals are somewhere in between, will mostly adhere to external moral codes but might sometimes bend them for the sake of their own satisfaction.

In other words: Chaotic Neutral grows and sells weed illegally, True Neutral doesn't sell it but might smoke it, Lawful Neutral doesn't see the issue with weed but will still report friends for selling it, or at the very least break off the friendship. (I'm not actually a stoner lol, weed is just a convenient example)

@Arthrospira you sound Lawful Good to me.


----------



## angelfish

I'm Neutral Good and Hufflepuff :redface:

I think you sound Lawful Good as well.


----------



## To_august

Arthrospira said:


> I think I’d be Lawful Neutral according to those descriptions since the first definition sounds more similar to Enneagram 2. I only go out of my way to help someone if I’m convinced that they DO need the help (for instance I wouldn’t give a lazy student my homework to copy or make someone pancakes but I usually give people a lift to their home even if it’s outside my route and regularly give to charity).
> 
> Does mercenary mean as in someone who fights for whoever has the money because I despise such people very much.
> 
> What if I am an Enneagram 1 obsessed with moral judgement and have a personal code based on that but don’t have much compassion and only care about justice, promoting the “good” and opposing the perceived “evils”?


I think one of the differences between lawful good and lawful neutral to look into is that lawful good is well aware of the conflict between doing what is lawful and doing what is good, and they usually find themselves in situations where they have to choose either one or the other, or trying to keep the balance somehow. While for lawful neutral law/internal code comes first and they are not overly concerned whether their deeds are inherently good or evil as long as they are justified by said internal code. Think Javert for the latter, who lived by strict principles and at the same time had no problem with kicking out the family out of their house because according to his beliefs it was the right thing to do.


----------



## Arthrospira

To_august said:


> I think one of the differences between lawful good and lawful neutral to look into is that lawful good is well aware of the conflict between doing what is lawful and doing what is good, and they usually find themselves in situations where they have to choose either one or the other, or trying to keep the balance somehow. While for lawful neutral law/internal code comes first and they are not overly concerned whether their deeds are inherently good or evil as long as they are justified by said internal code. Think Javert for the latter, who lived by strict principles and at the same time had no problem with kicking out the family out of their house because according to his beliefs it was the right thing to do.


We seem to have the same MBTI and Enneagram types so I’m curious as to what alignment and Hogwarts house you chose for yourself.


----------



## Pastelle

True Neutral
Gryffindor - 12
Ravenclaw - 11
Hufflepuff - 10
Slytherin - 8


----------



## Judson Joist

angelfish said:


> I'm Neutral Good and Hufflepuff :redface:


Me too!
:happy:
I've also gotten "Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies" since some tests incorporate those "in between" details. I kinda like that because it adds more nuance. As for my Hogwarts results, they're like this.

*Hufflepuff: 14
Ravenclaw: 13
Gryffindor: 10
Slytherin: 8*

Huffleclaw, represent! In the past, I've gotten Ravenpuff, but I seem to get Huffleclaw more often. It's always a mix of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, though. So much for the assumption that all INTJs are Lawful Evil Slytherin.
:tongue:
Granted, I've also typed as INFJ and as ISTJ.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Neutral Good 
Gryffinclaw


----------



## Cherry

Lawful Neutral (Hmm, I think I'd be more 'good' but I didn't like many of the options in the quiz)

Half gryffindor/half Ravenclaw


----------



## To_august

Arthrospira said:


> We seem to have the same MBTI and Enneagram types so I’m curious as to what alignment and Hogwarts house you chose for yourself.


Oh, lol. I got Neutral Evil. 
Probably I'm in the wrong mood for the test. Usually I get True Neutral, but I think it's not exactly right either. Generally I'm just someone who's trying to be Lawful Neutral but isn't very good at it. And thus I lean to other alignments depending where my character arc leads at the time.

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXX (6)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)

I used to get Ravenclaw on HP tests before, but got Gryffindor primary on this one - https://ejadelomax.itch.io/sortinghatchats
Pretty much agree with the description about "felt" morality and that pure intellectualization or construction of systems is never satisfying enough so as to be an actual drive. Just couldn't figure out my secondary on this one. Should be either ravenclaw or a burned slytherin.



> Gryffindor Primaries trust their moral intuitions and have a need and a drive to live by them. They feel what’s right in their gut, and that matters and guides them. If they don’t listen to and act on that, it feels immoral.We call Gryffindor morality “felt” but that doesn’t mean they’re all impetuous, emotional hellions. Gryffindors can still be intelligent, deliberate creatures who weigh their decisions and moralities carefully. Reasoning, intellectualizing and debate can be support for a Gryffindor’s felt morality– but those things can never make a fully satisfying morality in themselves. Some things are just wrong, no matter what pretty words you use to explain them.


----------



## Arthrospira

@To_august
Well, I’ve never thought I’d meet an ISTJ that isn’t lawful or someone with my type who gets extremely different results from me on tests. :tongue:
Now you’ve made me curious, care to share your Socionics/Tritype/Instinct? 

According to the test you’ve sent I’m Ravenclaw Primary/Model Hufflepuff for secondary(Model Gryffindor is also possible)


----------



## angelfish

Judson Joist said:


> Me too!
> :happy:
> I've also gotten "Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies" since some tests incorporate those "in between" details. I kinda like that because it adds more nuance. As for my Hogwarts results, they're like this.
> 
> *Hufflepuff: 14
> Ravenclaw: 13
> Gryffindor: 10
> Slytherin: 8*
> 
> Huffleclaw, represent! In the past, I've gotten Ravenpuff, but I seem to get Huffleclaw more often. It's always a mix of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, though. So much for the assumption that all INTJs are Lawful Evil Slytherin.
> :tongue:
> Granted, I've also typed as INFJ and as ISTJ.


Hehe, I'd be Neutral Good with Chaotic tendencies, in that case. I'm torn regarding my husband (ISFJ), who says he is Neutral Good too but clearly is far more Lawful than myself. 

I love Hufflepuff INTJ! 

I sort myself pretty firmly into Hufflepuff, but come up varyingly as Gryffindor or Ravenclaw on tests. I think Pottermore placed me in Gryffindor first go-round, and Ravenclaw when I did it years later. I was dissatisfied so left both times. 
:laughing:


----------



## Kitsune Love

Arthrospira said:


> I think I’d be Lawful Neutral according to those descriptions since the first definition sounds more similar to Enneagram 2. I only go out of my way to help someone if I’m convinced that they DO need the help (for instance I wouldn’t give a lazy student my homework to copy or make someone pancakes but I usually give people a lift to their home even if it’s outside my route and regularly give to charity).


I wouldn't compare the alignments to Enneagram. 
Enneagram is about Fear and Motivation. 

A Type Two could just as easily be a Chaotic Good character who is an unhealthy version of their type. They may want to help people but have been pushed to take matters into their own hands and take a more Type 8 approach. As Type 2 disintegrates to 8 when stressed.

Or a Lawful Evil character who wishes to serve someone but has morally corrupt ideas of how to go about it. 




> Does mercenary mean as in someone who fights for whoever has the money because I despise such people very much.


I used "Mercenary" because when people think of merc's, they think of an individual or a group of individuals whose allegiance could lie anywhere depending on the circumstances. A mercenary is an expendable but capable agent that could be in it for the money, or they could be in it for their own excitement, or anything else that concerns their own freedom/family/friends. They're in it for their own benefit, and that includes whatever may be a benefit to their group. It's the very definition of "Neutral."



> What if I am an Enneagram 1 obsessed with moral judgement and have a personal code based on that but don’t have much compassion and only care about justice, promoting the “good” and opposing the perceived “evils”?


An Enneagram 1 can also be an evil character. 
Thanos from Avangers End Game
Agent Smith from The Matrix. 
Light Yagami from Death Note

All villains. All Type 1's


----------



## Arthrospira

Nightstorm said:


> I wouldn't compare the alignments to Enneagram.
> Enneagram is about Fear and Motivation.
> 
> A Type Two could just as easily be a Chaotic Good character who is an unhealthy version of their type. They may want to help people but have been pushed to take matters into their own hands and take a more Type 8 approach. As Type 2 disintegrates to 8 when stressed.
> 
> Or a Lawful Evil character who wishes to serve someone but has morally corrupt ideas of how to go about it.
> 
> An Enneagram 1 can also be an evil character.
> Thanos from Avangers End Game
> Agent Smith from The Matrix.
> Light Yagami from Death Note
> 
> All villains. All Type 1's


Aren’t D&D alignments also about motivations? There’s no way to assess whether someone is good or evil. A righteous hero of one country could be seen as an evil invader by the other. So I interpret evil to mean “Self-Serving” rather than “Baby-Murderer”. I don’t know the other two characters but I think Light starts as Good (uses the notebook to punish criminals) but eventually turns Evil (uses the notebook to become The God). 

If we look at it your way Ned Stark (Also 1), a character who always gets called Lawful Good is actually Lawful Evil since he beheads someone just because he ran away from White Walkers and was willing to start a war over inheritance rights, a war which would cost thousands of innocent peasants their lives. No, he is called Lawful Good because his intentions were never self-serving and always sought to prevent evil as he perceived (Killing of pregnant women and children).

And by that logic literally everyone and their mother would type as “Good”. Is there a single person who thinks of themselves as evil?


----------



## Kitsune Love

Arthrospira said:


> Aren’t D&D alignments also about motivations? There’s no way to assess whether someone is good or evil. A righteous hero of one country could be seen as an evil invader by the other. So I interpret evil to mean “Self-Serving” rather than “Baby-Murderer”. I don’t know the other two characters but I think Light starts as Good (uses the notebook to punish criminals) but eventually turns Evil (uses the notebook to become The God).
> 
> If we look at it your way Ned Stark (Also 1), a character who always gets called Lawful Good is actually Lawful Evil since he beheads someone just because he ran away from White Walkers and was willing to start a war over inheritance rights, a war which would cost thousands of innocent peasants their lives. No, he is called Lawful Good because his intentions were never self-serving and always sought to prevent evil as he perceived (Killing of pregnant women and children).
> 
> And by that logic literally everyone and their mother would type as “Good”. Is there a single person who thinks of themselves as evil?


I think MBTI and Enneagram are personality types that are more or less hard-wired into us. I don't think they change.
Alignments, however, can. Because no man is perfect. 

Any enneagram can fall under any alignment depending on their circumstances.
Even Superman (The iconic Lawful Good hero) became morally corrupt in some of his timelines (Justice League Unlimited cartoon for example)

And of course there are people who perceive themselves as evil. If you read my descriptions of each alignment, I actually mentioned that some evil character are/do evil for the sake of evil. I was just saying, if you're going to involve enneagram, a Type 2 (supposedly the kindest Ennea) would still have Two-ish motivations to become evil. Just like a Type 7 or 8 (The most aggressive or hedonistic types) would have Eight-ish or Seven-ish motivations to be good.

I'll admit, certain enneagrams do tend to fall under certain alignments, but it's still a matter of any type can be any alignment.


----------



## Arthrospira

Nightstorm said:


> I think MBTI and Enneagram are personality types that are more or less hard-wired into us. I don't think they change.
> Alignments, however, can. Because no man is perfect.
> 
> Any enneagram can fall under any alignment depending on their circumstances.
> Even Superman (The iconic Lawful Good hero) became morally corrupt in some of his timelines (Justice League Unlimited cartoon for example)
> 
> And of course there are people who perceive themselves as evil. If you read my descriptions of each alignment, I actually mentioned that some evil character are/do evil for the sake of evil. I was just saying, if you're going to involve enneagram, a Type 2 (supposedly the kindest Ennea) would still have Two-ish motivations to become evil. Just like a Type 7 or 8 (The most aggressive or hedonistic types) would have Eight-ish or Seven-ish motivations to be good.
> 
> I'll admit, certain enneagrams do tend to fall under certain alignments, but it's still a matter of any type can be any alignment.


Doing evil for the sake of evil sounds like the motto of a villain from a childrens book, even axe-murderers don’t commit murders in order to be evil. I gave an example from GOT so here’s an another one: Tywin is usually called Lawful Evil, right? Well, even he doesn’t do anything for the sake of being evil. He does what he does for the glory of him and his dynasty or to teach his pesky son a lesson but never once takes any significant action thinking “it is the moral and right thing to do”, unlike Ned who pretty much lives for that stuff.

A Good type 2 would genuinely help for the sake of being helpful while an Evil type 2 would pretend to help in a way that ultimately served themselves rather than the other person, maybe to gain and abuse a vulnarable persons love to tie them to their will.

A Good type 8 would be a justice fighter looking to rid the world of bullies because it is the right thing to do while an Evil type 8 would bulldoze anything on their path to reach their selfish desires.

Can you tell why do you think you are Lawful Good? Have you ever thought that you had the Evil alignment (Not in retrospection but actively thinking that at the time)

I think that site also makes a lot of sense in that regard; The Alignment System


----------



## Kitsune Love

Arthrospira said:


> Doing evil for the sake of evil sounds like the motto of a villain from a childrens book, even axe-murderers don’t commit murders in order to be evil.


Are you saying serial killers and repeating-offender criminals aren't being evil because they enjoy the terrible things that they do? (which if you need me to explain: That's exactly what I meant when I said "being evil for the sake of being evil")

Fine. Maybe I blurred the lines a little too much.

Yes, GOOD characters can commit terrible atrocities.
A Lawful Good character might take the life of someone under the order of the king or in the name of the deity that they service. 
A Neutral Good character might steal something if it meant saving the life of someone else. 
A Chaotic Good character might take justice into their own hands and start killing off criminals like the Boondock Saints. 

However, they still classify as "GOOD". So I can see where the lines were blurred.

Admittedly there are characters that are EVIL that don't consider themselves evil, but we can't pretend that there are people or characters that don't enjoy/take pleasure/simply benefit from being the bad guy. 

King Pin (Daredevil): He just doesn't value human life. He's killed many people and doesn't lose a blink of sleep. He does what he needs to do in order to keep is crime ring running and if anyone fails him, he kills or has them killed. (Neutral Evil)

Slade (Teen Titans): He uses Robin to steal from Wayne enterprises and to hurt the rest of the TT. He delivers Raven to Trigon. He manipulates Tera to turn against her friends. Not to mention, he's been open about *enjoying* causing pain to the Teen Titans. However, there were instances he helped the Titans to achieve an end goal. (Lawful Evil)

Tyrion Callows (RWBY): Worships the Evil Salem, an immortal queen of Grimm. He will happily, even gleefully kill in her name and he obeys her every command. He has no love for his teammates whatsoever and he'd probably kill them if Salem didn't need them anymore. Tyrion takes absolute, _maniacal_ pleasure in carrying out the will of his Goddess (Salem), and if he gets to take lives or witness the good guys turn on each other, he considers it ALL the more fun. (Chaotic Evil)





> A Good type 2 would genuinely help for the sake of being helpful while an Evil type 2 would pretend to help in a way that ultimately served themselves rather than the other person, maybe to gain and abuse a vulnarable persons love to tie them to their will.
> 
> A Good type 8 would be a justice fighter looking to rid the world of bullies because it is the right thing to do while an Evil type 8 would bulldoze anything on their path to reach their selfish desires.


My initial point was any Enneagram can be any alignment, so...
Yeah.
Agreed.


----------



## CountZero

I tried a more detailed alignment test here: Alignment Test

My result was a Level 5 Lawful Good Human Sorcerer with a Charisma of 11. D&D fans know that combo just ain't going to work, so I'm left scratching my head. But for the sake of this thread, we'll assume it at least got the alignment right.

Google recommended this Hogwart's House sorter, which seems to be at least semi-official: https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/discover-your-hogwarts-house-on-wizarding-world

The downside is that it requires you to create an account, but what the heck...and it says I'm Ravenclaw, though it doesn't give a score breakdown. Not being a big Harry Potter fan, I'm not sure how to take being sorted into Ravenclaw.


----------



## Arthrospira

Nightstorm said:


> Are you saying serial killers and repeating-offender criminals aren't being evil because they enjoy the terrible things that they do? (which if you need me to explain: That's exactly what I meant when I said "being evil for the sake of being evil")


No, I’m saying that they don’t wake up at morning thinking “Ah yes, let me be evil today because being evil is great. Gotta think of more evil deeds to commit.” No, they don’t even think about good&evil when they get up to those atrocities, they simply do whatever they want to do for their selfish desires without giving a second thought to morality. So what I’m saying is if we went by your definition we would also have to classify such people as neutral because they don’t act evil to be evil. As human beings we need to be able to live with ourselves, that’s why even “evil” people look for justifications to see themselves as good people. 



Nightstorm said:


> Fine. Maybe I blurred the lines a little too much.
> 
> Yes, GOOD characters can commit terrible atrocities.
> A Lawful Good character might take the life of someone under the order of the king or in the name of the deity that they service.
> A Neutral Good character might steal something if it meant saving the life of someone else.
> A Chaotic Good character might take justice into their own hands and start killing off criminals like the Boondock Saints.
> 
> However, they still classify as "GOOD". So I can see where the lines were blurred.


Agreed. That was also my point.



Nightstorm said:


> Admittedly there are characters that are EVIL that don't consider themselves evil, but we can't pretend that there are people or characters that don't enjoy/take pleasure/simply benefit from being the bad guy.
> 
> King Pin (Daredevil): He just doesn't value human life. He's killed many people and doesn't lose a blink of sleep. He does what he needs to do in order to keep is crime ring running and if anyone fails him, he kills or has them killed. (Neutral Evil)
> 
> Slade (Teen Titans): He uses Robin to steal from Wayne enterprises and to hurt the rest of the TT. He delivers Raven to Trigon. He manipulates Tera to turn against her friends. Not to mention, he's been open about *enjoying* causing pain to the Teen Titans. However, there were instances he helped the Titans to achieve an end goal. (Lawful Evil)
> 
> Tyrion Callows (RWBY): Worships the Evil Salem, an immortal queen of Grimm. He will happily, even gleefully kill in her name and he obeys her every command. He has no love for his teammates whatsoever and he'd probably kill them if Salem didn't need them anymore. Tyrion takes absolute, _maniacal_ pleasure in carrying out the will of his Goddess (Salem), and if he gets to take lives or witness the good guys turn on each other, he considers it ALL the more fun. (Chaotic Evil)


I don’t know any of those characters so I will refrain from commenting.

I never said all Enneagram 1s/2s are “Good” people, if I thought that way I’d simply go ahead and call myself Lawful Good without opening a thread. When I used Type 1 and 2 as examples I meant to emphasize the difference in how much the definition of “help” differs between us. My enneagram 2 friend constantly bakes cakes&cookies for everyone and thinks this is a helpful act, also urges me to do the same to be more “selfless”. But to me nobody actually needs to eat cakes so baking them is not being helpful or selfless at all. On the other hand I usually jump into fights to defend someone if I think their rights are being violated while she never does. To me this is being helpful and selfless while to her it’s alienating those I’m arguing.

So I mentioned my type in order to provide more context as to why I do what I do.


----------



## Kitsune Love

Arthrospira said:


> No, I’m saying that they don’t wake up at morning thinking “Ah yes, let me be evil today because being evil is great. Gotta think of more evil deeds to commit.” No, they don’t even think about good&evil when they get up to those atrocities, they simply do whatever they want to do for their selfish desires without giving a second thought to morality. So what I’m saying is if we went by your definition we would also have to classify such people as neutral because they don’t act evil to be evil. As human beings we need to be able to live with ourselves, that’s why even “evil” people look for justifications to see themselves as good people.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. That was also my point.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know any of those characters so I will refrain from commenting.
> 
> I never said all Enneagram 1s/2s are “Good” people, if I thought that way I’d simply go ahead and call myself Lawful Good without opening a thread. When I used Type 1 and 2 as examples I meant to emphasize the difference in how much the definition of “help” differs between us. My enneagram 2 friend constantly bakes cakes&cookies for everyone and thinks this is a helpful act, also urges me to do the same to be more “selfless”. But to me nobody actually needs to eat cakes so baking them is not being helpful or selfless at all. On the other hand I usually jump into fights to defend someone if I think their rights are being violated while she never does. To me this is being helpful and selfless while to her it’s alienating those I’m arguing.
> 
> So I mentioned my type in order to provide more context as to why I do what I do.


I don't understand why you're debating me on this.

The OP wanted to know more about alignments, so I told them. Now you're over here trying to tell me that the evil alignment doesn't exist at all and that EVERYONE is neutral?

I suggested to the OP that they shouldn't mix enneagram and alignment (I think that each personality theory is a separate entity on its own) and you seem to agree with me that any mbti/ennea could be any alignment.

I think the only thing we disagree on is that good and evil can be objectively measured.

I understand that you don't know the characters I listed, but something they all had in common was their enjoyment of their crimes/sins. The dirty, messed up, despicable things they do bring them a sense of satisfaction or pleasure (as opposed to Ned Stark for example, who "only does it cause he thinks it's right", as you've said.)

No, they don't wake up thinking "I'm gonna be evil today!" but they do find joy in what they do: 
Hurting people.


----------



## Arthrospira

Nightstorm said:


> I still don't quite understand why you started debating with me.
> 
> I was suggesting to the OP that they shouldn't mix enneagram and alignment (I think that each personality theory is a separate entity on its own) and you seem to agree with me that any mbti/ennea could be any alignment.
> 
> I think the only thing we disagree on is that good and evil can be objectively measured.
> 
> I understand that you don't know the characters I listed, but something they all had in common was their enjoyment of their crimes/sins. The dirty, messed up, despicable things they do bring them a sense of satisfaction or pleasure (as opposed to Ned Stark for example, who "only does it cause he thinks it's right", as you've said.)


I’m the OP so you’re the one who started the debate in the first place. But we can stop if you say so.

Reply to your edit: 


Nightstorm said:


> The OP wanted to know more about alignments, so I told them. Now you're over here trying to tell me that the evil alignment doesn't exist at all and that EVERYONE is neutral?


I’m saying that everyone would be neutral by YOUR LOGIC. Not that everyone is neutral.



Nightstorm said:


> No, they don't wake up thinking "I'm gonna be evil today!" but they do find joy in what they do:
> Hurting people.


Yeah, kinda my point?

Also can you stop editing and make a new post? I can’t keep track of all those edits to reply one by one.


----------



## Kitsune Love

Arthrospira said:


> I’m the OP so you’re the one who started the debate in the first place. But we can stop if you say so.


Shoot, my bad. I got confused and thought it was Rong Wong. Sorry.




> I’m saying that everyone would be neutral by YOUR LOGIC. Not that everyone is neutral.


The logic I'm trying to put across is that each alignment CAN stray from their path and make differing decision but they'd still inherently be their alignment. Example: A Chaotic Neutral character can show compassion, even love for another person but they would still be Chaotic Neutral because it's just in their blood to be spontaneous, unpredictable and eternally dedicated to their own sense of freedom.




> Yeah, kinda my point?


Yes, my point too. Looks like we're on the same page.


----------



## Arthrospira

@Nightstorm

Then we can happily stop debating:tongue:


----------



## To_august

Arthrospira said:


> @*To_august*
> Well, I’ve never thought I’d meet an ISTJ that isn’t lawful or someone with my type who gets extremely different results from me on tests. :tongue:
> Now you’ve made me curious, care to share your Socionics/Tritype/Instinct?
> 
> According to the test you’ve sent I’m Ravenclaw Primary/Model Hufflepuff for secondary(Model Gryffindor is also possible)


Lol, yeah, I mean, I can see lawful for myself but things aren't usually as clear-cut. Rules and principles are important but I find that goals are usually even more important. If rules interfere or hold back what I'm trying to accomplish then I revise, modify, or create new rules. Think I'm more flexible than strictly lawful alignment, but at the end of the day I don't expect to perfectly fit the system.

For Socionics - Delta ST. Probs LSE. 
Tritype - 164. 
For instincts - tentatively sp/so or so/sp, but I don't strongly relate to any of the three instincts tbh. I'm not too focused on material achievements, belonging to social groups or having intimate personal connections. Think I just don't have strong connections to instincts in general.


----------



## Arthrospira

To_august said:


> Lol, yeah, I mean, I can see lawful for myself but things aren't usually as clear-cut. Rules and principles are important but I find that goals are usually even more important. If rules interfere or hold back what I'm trying to accomplish then I revise, modify, or create new rules. Think I'm more flexible than strictly lawful alignment, but at the end of the day I don't expect to perfectly fit the system.
> 
> For Socionics - Delta ST. Probs LSE.
> Tritype - 164.
> For instincts - tentatively sp/so or so/sp, but I don't strongly relate to any of the three instincts tbh. I'm not too focused on material achievements, belonging to social groups or having intimate personal connections. Think I just don't have strong connections to instincts in general.


I’m very inflexible when it comes to certain rules, I just decide the way I’m going to act and let the end result be whatever it may.

But yeah that difference makes perfect sense for Delta ST(Te user) vs Beta ST(Ti user).


----------



## To_august

Arthrospira said:


> I’m very inflexible when it comes to certain rules, I just decide the way I’m going to act and let the end result be whatever it may.
> 
> But yeah that difference makes perfect sense for Delta ST(Te user) vs Beta ST(Ti user).


Yeah, that makes sense.
Socionics makes much better distinction in terms of functions.


----------



## Albatross

*Hufflepuff* - 12
_*Ravenclaw*_ - 12
Gryffindor - 9
Slytherin - 7

*
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 ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (18)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXX (7)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXX (8)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral - XXXXXXX (7)
Evil ---- XX (2)


----------



## midnightdance

Gryffindor - 10
Hufflepuff - 10
Ravenclaw - 10
Slytherin - 9
Almost tied for all of them lmaoooo 
The official sorting quiz on pottermore gave me Slytherin
True Neutral on D&D alignment quiz, but close scores for lawful neutral and lawful good. I identify more with lawful good, but maybe I'm not as "good" as I thought and that's why I got neutral


----------



## Judson Joist

The very first time I took a Hogwarts test I was evenly split between Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff which is supposedly "not possible" (spoken in Auto voice from 'WALL-E').


----------



## DonnaRowe

INFP, 4w5, tritype 459


Lawful Good- A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (28)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (26)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (24)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXX (3)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Chaos --- XXX (3)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (16)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Evil ---- (0)

Your in-depth results are:

Hufflepuff - 14
Ravenclaw - 13
Gryffindor - 12
Slytherin - 6


----------



## Notus Asphodelus

*True Neutral & Hufflepuff*


----------



## angelfish

CountZero said:


> I tried a more detailed alignment test here: Alignment Test
> 
> My result was a Level 5 Lawful Good Human Sorcerer with a Charisma of 11.


Oh, I like the extended test!

I got Lawful Good Human Cleric. Is that a combo that makes sense in D&D?

I'm down with human and cleric, though I think NG is really more correct.


----------

