# Is this a Worldly Morality Test?



## Grymir (Sep 6, 2008)

My wife and I have taken this test -

Talisman: Robin Hood Morality Test

I thought our answers were o.k. and kind of accurate. But as we were scrolling through the answer list, and talking about how different answers for a persons morality were given, it seemed very worldly (esp from a psycological standpoint). Especially when a person put Maid Marrion as last. Any thoughts?


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 6, 2008)

I got a "Interpretation

You claim to be a realist or even a cynic, but you are more emotional, romantic, and truthful.

Men: Although you are by no means inhibited, your amorous adventures are as much a matter of fantasy as fact. 

smjr"

because stealing, is never acceptable. Robin, is no more right in stealing then the rich are in being stingy. But their sin does not justify Robins sin.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 6, 2008)

Yes. Never take the evaluations and methodology of a "marriage expert" who is also a "qualified psychologist" with anything but a highly critical eye. 

Of course, I am also apparently a "moralist with conventional ideas, which some people would call old-fashioned." So, what would I know. Beside, my "inhibitions and sense of guilt are in the way of [my] happiness", so it is safe to assume that my opinion should be most positively to be ignored when speaking of the usefulness of a test put forth by such fair-minded free thinkers (read "morons").


----------



## Grymir (Sep 6, 2008)

You got the same answer.. how about the "You probably consider yourself a fair-minded man in a world which falls badly below your standards" I thought, what about God's standards. hmm


----------



## Archlute (Sep 6, 2008)

Grymir said:


> I thought, what about God's standards. hmm



Exactly.


----------



## Grymir (Sep 6, 2008)

Oh yea, I almost forgot



Archlute said:


> Beside, my "inhibitions and sense of guilt are in the way of [my] happiness", so it is safe to assume that my opinion should be most positively to be ignored when speaking of the usefulness of a test put forth by such fair-minded free thinkers (read "morons").


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 6, 2008)

jmrs


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 6, 2008)

> I got a "Interpretation
> 
> You claim to be a realist or even a cynic, but you are more emotional, romantic, and truthful.
> 
> ...



Haha, mine was exactly the reverse. Robin, Little John, Marion, Sheriff - best to worst.

You are completely right on Robin's thievery being sinful and unjustified. I still think he's the best out of the bunch. 

In this paragraph, Robin's only sin was stealing.

Little John stole the same as Robin did, with the added wrong of defending Marion's sin. While perhaps not evil, running off with Marion is certainly stupid. If she will violate her purity to get her boyfriend out of jail, what other times will she also do it?

Marion's fornication, in my mind, is worse than the stealing by Little John and Robin. Also, agreeing so quickly to be with Little John, to me, shows she was more interested in being loved by _someone_, rather than being able to commit to a certain man. She couldn't recognize her sinful fornication, and would take anyone who was ok with it. What happens when Little John disappoints her in some way, or has a standard she doesn't meet - will she run off again with someone even less scrupulous because he will accept her?

Last, the Sheriff, who is ironically last on my list, but the only one to do something right in the story. He jailed LJ and Robin for stealing. But, his sin is most grievous because of the office he holds. That office is set apart by God to bless the good, and punish evil, establishing justice. To then use that office for selfish, sinful sexual gratification is most abhorrent. His sin is greater than Marion's not only because of his office, but because he proposed the evil act. On a negligible bright side, he did keep his word and let R and LJ out of jail.

A little extra detail and explanation in the story would be helpful, though.

I was hoping there was an option that said: "Robin, Little John, Marion, Sheriff - but they're all going to hell without Christ." But I couldn't find it.


----------



## Galatians220 (Sep 6, 2008)

Here was my assessment after answering "JSRM:"



_You are conventional, unimaginative, and something of a prude. It would be surprising if your love life was a roaring success. __*Women:* You accept a double standard of morality in which women are very much the "second sex."_ 

Okay... *So.* _These people know me or something????_

 

Margaret


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 6, 2008)

> Forget any preconceived ideas you may about them - this is a different sort of story from all the others.


If that's the case, then there is no mention of a crime for which RH and LJ are imprisoned. Without that preconception, wouldn't LJ be the one with the least immorality (I see none), then RH, whose treatment of MM was less than pure, then MM for her promiscuity, then the Sherrif for his promiscuity and corruption? Enter those in and see what the survey says.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 6, 2008)

^Yeah, I saw that, but I think we can still assume R and LJ were in for stealing. Otherwise, this would be one of those "gotcha" quizzes for critical reading or logic - not a morality test. Tricking people by never mentioning R and LJ were thieves doesn't seem to serve his purposes, so I thought we could assume it. 

If we are to suppose they weren't thieves, then there is no reason to name the characters Robin Hood, Little John, Maid Marion, and the Sheriff other than to confuse people. I just don't think that's what he was after. 

But you're right, it does make a difference...except RH would be blameless (assuming the "abuse" was strictly verbal - it doesn't say whether he hit her). In the phrasing, it seems that way to me. He is not wrong to call MM a "slut" and never want to see her again - the first is true, and the second is justified. I think the creator views this as 'abuse.' If he hit her, it's a different story.

Meanwhile LJ still defended Marion's sin and evidently didn't have a problem with it.


----------



## Superstu (Sep 6, 2008)

Brad, That was my interpretation of the passage also. Since the "disclaimer" to the paragraph stated not to allow any preconceived ideas of the Robin Hood story to affect your interpretation of the paragraph, I assumed that there was no crime comitted by LJ and RH. So after submitting LRMS, the results state: 

"You are a cautious type, neutral, and rather insecure. You would agree with the idea that everybody has his price - and in your own case it would not be high. 

Men: You are sexually inhibited with an underlying distrust of women." 

So, I'm a sleazebag who is afraid of women. 

Sounds about right.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 6, 2008)

Superstu said:


> Brad, That was my interpretation of the passage also. Since the "disclaimer" to the paragraph stated not to allow any preconceived ideas of the Robin Hood story to affect your interpretation of the paragraph, I assumed that there was no crime comitted by LJ and RH. So after submitting LRMS, the results state:
> 
> "You are a cautious type, neutral, and rather insecure. You would agree with the idea that everybody has his price - and in your own case it would not be high.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's what I got, too. So much for trying to abide by the disclaimer. I suppose we're mysogynists because we think that Marion was wrong to fornicate.


----------

