What are your thoughts on alignment charts?

If you don't know what an alignment chart is, it's basically this.



There's a lot of controversy surrounding alignment charts, either that they box in characters, or are so vague that they mean very little. I personally categorize all of my characters in some similar way just to keep them straight.
The problem (in my mind) comes when characters are played like this:




Sure, a lawful character might not be completely feasible, as a chaotic evil normal person. But in my opinion alignments hinge on intention and beliefs, not effect.

In my mind, an alignment chart works a little more like this.
View attachment 1313
In this iteration, a lawful good and chaotic good characters both wish for the same thing, but have different means to achieve their peace.
Most people (on this chart) fall somewhere outside of evil.


So what do you think? Do you use alignment charts when you play DnD? What about outside of DnD? What's your favourite alignment presentation?

Disclaimer: Only the last chart was drawn by me.

OKAY so I have a lot of feelingns on alignment charts. First of all, to answer your question, I use them when I play up to the point where they no longer serve me. For example, if I say my character is LG and he starts to get more chaotic based on what I think he would do given the situation, I won't change his behavior to fit an alignment, I'll change the alignment to fit the behavior. Alignment is a tool for the writer when building a character, but you have to be careful not to let it box you into a tired trope. Letting your character grow into an individual and explore their own story is one of the most fun parts of roleplay, in my opinion.

As for your addition, I think that's pretty accurate, too. On the most basic level, I think people's drives are pretty similar. Most people look out for themselves and their families first, then want to help the rest of the world as much as possible. Those people I would say are Good, while Neutral would be more 'I look out for myself and mine- if that's good for someone else, okay, if not, okay, too.' I would say the few people who really fall into the Evil "f*** the world" category usually have a reason for their thinking patterns, which is another reason not to let yourself be boxed in by your alignment! When your character's experiences change, their thought patterns will, too, and possibly their alignment. I also think the sliding scale style chart is more useful for showing this progression than the boxed version, but that's not the point.

Any alignment can be an interesting character concept and fun to write, if done well. Lawful Good can be seen as boring, but imagine a LG paladin discovers her order is letting innocents die to villianize the enemy. How is it boring to write someone's world crumbling as they're forced to reevaluate the laws of their society and decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong for the very first time? Whereas the "edgy" CN can easily turn into what I call "chaotic stupid," doing random and dangerous things for the hell of it without considering the consequences. A character is as interesting as you allow them to be through your roleplay.

I personally find alignment charts a quick, simple, and familiar/easily understood way to categorize a character to OTHER players. I, like inkdragon tend to view alignment charts as a more fluid thing than a rigid boundary of walls. Characters grow and evolve through experiences, and their morality and alignment with it. They can also often times toe the line between alignments. Like my one character I would define as lawful good, with neutral good tendencies. She understands, values, and strives to uphold the ideals of law and order, but not at the expense of completely forgetting the spirit BEHIND such things in the first place. When pushed under the right circumstances, the 'good' aspect of the alignment, can at times come into conflict with the 'lawful' aspect as the two do not always coexist in harmony.

That said, I'm not a fan of alignment charts if they're being used as rigid personal boundaries. 'I'm a poor roleplayer if my character strays outside of this carefully crafted box, even if it's IC for them to do so' is not a mentality I maintain. If it's IC for that character to alter their views, or to make exceptions in the right circumstances? Then I'll do that.

I personally try to build characters from the inside out, so an alignment is something I would only utilize to describe a character AFTER I built it since an alignment is based on an entire life of experiences that need to come first to lay the groundwork for why a character thinks and acts the way it does. With that in mind, as long as it can get across a general idea to another player of where I generally place my character, it serves its purpose for me.

Hate them. The idea you can kategorize human behavior in a rigid chart is ridiculous. People are shades of grey, and more to the point, constantly changeing shades of grey. Me personaly, I tend to range the vhole spektrum of Neutral and Chaotic behavior, depending on my mood. Most often true and chaotic Neutral, but I do cross over to both sides on ocassion, too.

Same with any chars I make, I dont kategorize them, I let there actions in-RP speak for themselfs. If my RP partner wants to put them in a box in there own mind, sure, thats up to them. But I wont do it.

Personally, I think Alignment Charts are a useful tool in character development and role-within-story aspects; but they limit character imagination in the world of roleplay. As a writing tool in general, I feel these charts add a whimsical mix of usefulness and comical relief when attempting to align the characters you've made specifically for your story or project, but no two people think in the same way, therefore the use of alignment charts in a group or collaborative setting is a bit redundant. Just because one person feels a character should be aligned one way, does not guarantee that a fellow artist would agree with that sentiment, particularly when it comes to the more "extreme" ends of the spectrum. So, I guess my stance is that they're useful for personal projects, but not group settings.

alignment charts a re in my opinion a bit of a horoscope. you dont really need them and they are kind of pointless but they are also incredibly fun. i also get kind of cranky when people dont use them properly though, or even worse, if they say that alignment charts are dumb and just annoying, when they think they are something entirely different to what they are in reality. though your understanding of the lawful-chaotic good-evil alignment system seems pretty sound.

what a lot of people don't understand is that it was made as a tool for understanding and roleplaying as characters that a roleplayer might have difficulty relating to, which is also why i think it made it's way into writing and other creative media. if you are writing about a character that you don't really understand, an alignment chart can help you think from their perspective to an extent.

heres some of the bad tropes i dont like that other people put on certain alignments, just to have a laugh:
lawful is only people who like to reason and could never be depicted as an unreasonable character or irrational.
chaotic is only psychos and insane people, or on the rare occasion a vigilante. essentially, every chaotic character is an extremist with no exception
neutral characters are either completely ambivalent or amplified versions of the part that is not neutral. a chaotic neutal will be over the top. a neutal good will for some reason go out of their way to morally police everybody they lay their eyes on.
good is always 100% rainbows and lollipops and always the happy protagonist who is always right and completely morally sound. most mary sues are claimed to be some form of "good". i'll let you think about that.
evil characters are always self righteous pigs and are only ever villains. they also act in over the top edgy villain ways. obviously chaotic evil characters are the most dangerous because theyre insane extremists who are also bad guys, not because they will protect themselves and their own well fair without even considering how it may effect other people, with no care in the world.

because i dont think it would be fair otherwise, ill list out what each really means and then maybe say what i think i am and why.
lawful is the belief and reliance on order and law to make things safe for either you or others, or sometimes both. just like chaotic, the beliefs of a lawful person will depend on how they were raised. someone raised in a desert landscape might think it is entirely fine to kill someone for stealing your water, especially if they are lawful.
chaotic is the belief that freedom in choice is the key to sanctum, whether to benefit themselves or others, or both. what they believe is wrong will often depend on where they were raised, similar to a lawful character. a lot of good stories completely ignore if characters are good or evil in their plot, and instead choose to make the conflict lawful vs chaotic. in this case, a character can be evil and still seen as a 'good guy' because theyre on the protagonists side.
neutral is typically the belief that perfection lies in balance. these are the 'in between' guys who may think, depending on where their 'neutral' alignment is placed, that a mixture between good - evil is necessary to create a happy and functional society, or they may think that a lawful - chaotic balance is vital to benefit themselves and/or their community. neutral characters tend to think a lot because of this, and due to their thoughtful nature are often quite rare. though the true neutral character isn't by default the CORRECT belief yet. because a neutral character can be unpredictable and might encourage the burning down of several community buildings for their own reasons. which would immediately put them as a villainous persona to anybody supportive of the law. the next they could decide that free speech should be completely disallowed in a city. this makes them highly disliked among chaotic characters for obvious reasons. in reality, a neutral character isn't normally extreme in their actions though. they just come to conclusions others might be scratching their heads about.
good is the belief that for a community to be healthy, you should dedicate yourself to helping others. in a very quick summary, good is selflessness. Though good isn't always the correct persona. because for one, if you are selfless, then that means you are more likely not to consider what you need. because of this, a good character may also believe in reliance on each other. and that people need someone in their life to groom them. this can go wrong a large number of ways but that's a discussion for another day.
evil isn't anything to do with being 'the bad guy'. evil characters, usually through a level of hardship, have determined that their well being is the only thing that matters. evil characters arent necessarily dickheads who will do anything if its for their gain, though. they might be nice people, simply because if they are nice to others, that benefits them. characters can be of evil alignment and the possibility of this being the case may fly straight over a fandoms head, simply because its not the typical disney villain scenario where the character is screaming 'IM EVIL. IM THE BAD GUY.' hell, sometimes the protagonist is of evil alignment and it won't cross anyone's mind. evil characters are typically selfish, though this in itself can be it's own philosophy and way of thinking, rather than your typical definition of just being a sin. which may perhaps be why this alignment is called 'evil' despite not really being so.

personally, i believe that i fit best into the neutral evil square. i dont typically care if its through law or chaos, i think that my own well being is more important than those of others. a part of what builds this perspective is indeed just that i am a selfish person and don't like having to do things for other peoples' benefit. but it's also because i believe that if everyone takes good care of themself, then there's no need to rely on each other. and in a lot of cases relying on someone else is flawed, in my opinion. i think that probably in part this is a mind set that i gained from my family. a lot of my brothers and sisters, as well as my parents believe strongly in self reliance. and tend to think of all the traditional 'marriage' ideals of being bound to one person and having to rely on that person as unfitting and in some cases straight up idiotic. but i am completely aware this is a subjective view and not an objective truth. in summary, law and order is all well and good, as long as it protects me and what i want to do. if it does not, then i tend to opt for chaos and freedom. if someones freedom of choice gets in the way of my own needs, then i will side with the law again.

Alignment charts should be considered a motivation chart. It doesn't represent their values. That's up to you to define. When picking an alignment, just know that Good is selfless. Evil is selfish. Law is respecting tradition, social norms, and actual laws. Chaos is not.

It's very loose. You can have a lawful good person justify torture because it's for the greater good, punishment, or making an example to keep society functioning and keep it honest. You can have a chaotic good person steal nearly indiscriminately, but justify it by how they spend their loot. Good people can be misguided or raised with different values.

Lawful Evil people may not care what is thought of them, their people, or how much suffering they cause, but look out for their people at any cost because they want to be regarded as a savior or just get power from it. Maybe they want the smug, self-superiority of being loved throughout the land, doing it all for the attention. They can do good things with selfish or bad intentions.

Chaotic Evil people could have been oppressed by laws for their entire lives as a servitor caste or race. They could potentially be sympathetic in their rampage, sewing death and destruction to teach people a lesson. They can be justified in their actions and from the viewpoint of their people do the right thing, but go much too far in their quest.

You just have to better define a characters' values and goals. The alignment only reflects the morality of how they go about it.