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.