Most uncommon type of person?

I want answers.
Really think about it. What type of person is most unlikely in human civilization?
Any actual response would be appreciated. Explain what it means to you, an example may help and why you think that would be the least populous type of individual.
...

 Spoiler

Personally I believe Chaotic Good would be the most unusual. People with a strong sense of morality tend to be rooted in tradition or the idea of uniform good. I can only really think of vigilantes in that sense.

Actual lawful good I think.. it's easy to call yourself lawful good and actually just be neutral, since passively accepting laws is close enough for many purposes.

Actual lawful good I think.. it's easy to call yourself lawful good and actually just be neutral, since passively accepting laws is close enough for many purposes.

Think about all the people that want you to follow a law or tradition because they think it is right. (in the moral sense, not traditional or socially acceptable sense)
Think Christianity (I am sure it is in many other places, but this immediately springs to mind for me in Alabama)


EDIT: cleared up a bit.

chaotic neutral

everything else can be a sample of a someone thats NOT uncommon..

examples:
chaotic good- religious person? duh
lawful good- LAWL GRMER NASIZ
true neutral- any common human? ...omg i got myspace/twitter/facebook/halo/like emo music anything else that makes u want to fit in with others...
chaotic evil- hitler osama hussein bush much?


...think about it

uh...
what is all this? by that; what in blue blazes is with the poll options, what do they mean?

chaotic neutral

everything else can be a sample of a someone thats NOT uncommon..

examples:
chaotic good- religious person? duh
lawful good- LAWL GRMER NASIZ
true neutral- any common human? ...omg i got myspace/twitter/facebook/halo/like emo music anything else that makes u want to fit in with others...
chaotic evil- hitler osama hussein bush much?


...think about it

I would argue against those.
Chaotic evil would not be Hilter etc. Those would be Lawful Evil. I'd say... a Spontaneous killer would be chaotic evil.
Or a kid that pulled unlawful and harmful pranks would be in the same.
...
Most religious people would be in Lawful good- being that lawful is more of a tradition restraint which religious people tend to flock too.

Good and Evil are morally relative concepts. Would any consider a suicide bomber to be evil? The Bomber believes it to be morally acceptable, and the West views it as distasteful.

Good and Evil are morally relative concepts. Would any consider a suicide bomber to be evil? The Bomber believes it to be morally acceptable, and the West views it as distasteful.

As for the Good/Evil ideal. Some people willing disregard there moral positions for personal gain.
I am not saying that a kamikaze is Evil.
I am saying the guy that steals because it benefits him and he justifies his actions as needs or other means would be.
They are usurping their moral values and determining that other values/needs/wants are of more importance.

saw something that kinda helped me out with this thing...

the most uncommon, or IMO down right impossible, is the true neutral. whether it be for self gratification, or due to bias, there is always going to be someone acting for a reason, on one side of the liminal barrier. the only way to be truly true-neutral is to detach yourself from the world and all the goings-on therein.

saw something that kinda helped me out with this thing...

the most uncommon, or IMO down right impossible, is the true neutral. whether it be for self gratification, or due to bias, there is always going to be someone acting for a reason, on one side of the liminal barrier. the only way to be truly true-neutral is to detach yourself from the world and all the goings-on therein.

True neutral is more along the lines of being nonchanlant from a moral stand point (doesn't worry about doing the right thing doesn't worry about the wrong thing) and from a law standpoint.
Its more of a "MEH moral obligations being forced, MEH legality"
Not a defiance.

True neutral is more along the lines of being nonchanlant from a moral stand point (doesn't worry about doing the right thing doesn't worry about the wrong thing) and from a law standpoint.
Its more of a "MEH moral obligations being forced, MEH legality"
Not a defiance.

ahh.
i took the whole thing in terms of atoms. theres protons, which have a positive charge, electrons with their negative charge, and neutrons with a neutral charge. the neutrons just hang there, keeping everything in check and holding the atom together.

compared to humans, there are no neutronic humans. =/

i thought of mines 4 in the morning go figure :]

What about lawful neutral? How many people believe strongly in order without wanting that order for good or evil?

I think a chaotic evil person would be the most uncommon for society. The way I see it is, although not inexistent but still rare, a chaotic evil person would be that one person among a large group that is well seen and ridiculed for their behavior. The consequences of their actions would be enough of a deterrent for others to not want to be group with someone like that and if their actions are severe enough, the consequences could remove that one from society completely. At least that is just how I look at it.

What about lawful neutral? How many people believe strongly in order without wanting that order for good or evil?

think of a mercenary. they are hired to do something, and that alone. for those hiring them, that act is positive, but to the merc, its a neutral deed/just another job. or think in terms of one who has good ideals, but just sticks to them. like an idealist that is too lazy to go about and speak out for their ideals.

I think a chaotic evil person would be the most uncommon for society. The way I see it is, although not inexistent but still rare, a chaotic evil person would be that one person among a large group that is well seen and ridiculed for their behavior. The consequences of their actions would be enough of a deterrent for others to not want to be group with someone like that and if their actions are severe enough, the consequences could remove that one from society completely. At least that is just how I look at it.

chaotic evil could = sociopath, madman, deranged lunatic, serial murder/rapist, kleptomaniac, so on. just my 2 cents.

Well.
I think it's more of a 2D spectrum. Those nine options are just points on the plane.

The least likely extremities would probably be "Lawful" and "Evil".

Well.
I think it's more of a 2D spectrum. Those nine options are just points on the plane.

The least likely extremities would probably be "Lawful" and "Evil".

could you explain that a bit better, the second part i mean. theres three branches to lawful and to evil, with lawful spread all across the borders, and evil reaching all three planes.

As for the Good/Evil ideal. Some people willing disregard there moral positions for personal gain.
I am not saying that a kamikaze is Evil.
I am saying the guy that steals because it benefits him and he justifies his actions as needs or other means would be.
They are usurping their moral values and determining that other values/needs/wants are of more importance.

Is it morally bad to steal if you either have the choice dying of starvation or stealing?

I don't really get the words though, so I'll not anser poll.

Is it morally bad to steal if you either have the choice dying of starvation or stealing?

I don't really get the words though, so I'll not anser poll.

The idea of "Lawful" is just that you follow the law or tradition.
Really a better way to describe "lawful" would be a person who believes tradition and/or order are important.
Then the idea of a person who is willing to do things to get ahead, like abuse or make a corrupt law come in as Lawful Evil.
Thus why I'd argue a man like Hitler was Lawful Evil- He abused a set of laws and then reset them to serve his purpose.


Evil Neutral and Good would be closer to thoughts of Extreme selfishness for Evil to standards of philanthropy for good. (although I am not as sure on this section)

I am generally chaotically good. It's my perception, it's my idea of right or wrong. Kind of like Kira from Deathnote. He chose to kill people, but in the end did they or did they not deserve to be killed off. They say no man should have the power to make that decision, I say fate avoids it consistantly.