I'm trying to create and alignment chart to get a feel of all the various characters I have created and where they lie to better my characterizations of them. I used a 5 by 5 chart here, but if you are used to the 3 by 3 chart, ignore the Social, Moral and Impure sections (they're in bold.) Advice is welcomed. Lawful Good- By working, helping and trusting our fellow man there is no limit to the amount of good we can acheive and I live my life to uphold the of virtues of peace and justice for all of mankind. Social Good- I know the rules in place, they have their drawbacks and issues, but they're better than nothing and if they falter then we must work to fix and replace them. Neutral Good- I'll sometimes do what I can to help people and the society out, but I don't have to do it, especially when I have to look out for myself first. Rebel Good- I'll do what I can to help out others, but don't get in my way of doing it. Chaotic Good- I will do anything to ensure that the right thing is done. Anything. Lawful Moral- Most people want to be good, but don't know how or haven't been helped. It's not my place to help change others, but if they come to me I'll do my best. Social Moral- There are good and bad people and the best way that society can help the bad people is to let those in charge of such matters deal with them. Neutral Moral- I mostly look out for myself, but I know that people mostly have a good heart and I try not to be a burden on others who are just trying to survive. Rebel Moral- I stick to myself, but I'm not afraid to shake things up to wake up the people of the problems they should be addressing. Chaotic Moral- I know what's right, but I have my own ways of upholding that sense of rightness even if there's no method to my madness. Lawful Neutral- I know the rules in place, I know most people are good, but I couldn't care less since I look out for myself for the most part. Social Neutral- Good? Bad? I wouldn't know, I wouldn't care. I just do what I am told to survive. Neutral- Good? Bad? Who cares? Both are irrelevant. It's about getting yours no matter what because you always comes first. That being said I'll still gladly pick the side that makes more sense Rebel Neutral- I'll shake up the order of things, but don't care either way. Chaotic Neutral- I'll do whatever it takes to make sure good and even don't end up destroying the world. Being in the middle is the key no matter what. Lawful Impure- I want to see how far my authority can reach even if it is questionable. Social Impure- I'll gladly join a revolution to shake up society even if all the demands weren't met. Neutral Impure- I take what I need to live and thrive from both sides. If I have more than what I needed then there is simply more for me in the long run. Rebel Impure- I have tendencies to go against the grain and alter society simply to see what would happen. Chaotic Impure- There's no limit in regards to shaking things up. Lawful Evil- I'm a monster and the rules are ugly but at the end of the day order and control must be maintained. Social Evil- The power that be allow me to act in malevolent manner. Neutral Evil- I don't care about good for evil, but I'll gladly side with those that are considered evil out of respect for what they do or try to do or the basic fact that what they do is simply so fun and liberating. Rebel Neutral- I am bound to no authority and that allows me to do and say what I want to people for my own ends. Chaotic Evil- Rules and authority mean nothing to me. I'll gladly watch the world burn and its people suffer simply because it excites me.
What do you mean by "accurate"? A lot of these terms are open to interpretation, so if you're asking whether you have defined them correctly, I don't think anyone here can answer that other than by stating whether or not they agree with the definitions you have provided. If you're asking whether they map correctly to your characters, then we'd need information about your characters. In any case, I'm not sure it matters what anybody else thinks. If defining these terms in this way and slotting your characters into positions on the chart helps you to characterise them, then I would say that the scales have served their purpose. Would it make any difference if somebody disagreed with, say, your definition of the "rebel impure" category? Would you change your character's personality? Move them to a different slot? Alter your definition? Either way, you're allowing other people's opinions to influence the way you conceptualise and write, and as I writer I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.
I agree with @mashers that we can't really comment meaningfully on these since a lot of them seem to be your own invention, but... some of them don't seem internally consistent. Like, your definitions of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil are essentially the same - Lawful Neutral knows what the laws are but doesn't care and will do what she wants, Chaotic Neutral presumably knows what the laws are but, again, doesn't care and will do what she wants in order to preserve the balance between good and evil... but why would a chaotic character want to preserve a balance? Balance is a form of order, chaos doesn't like order...? I'm familiar with the 3x3 format of this and think you could find descriptions at any number of role-playing sites, but I'm not sure what's meant by the additional elements. "Rebel", to me, seems like the natural opposite of "Lawful" - which is already covered by "Chaotic". Similarly, "Moral" and "Good" seem to be covering similar ground... I assume you made these because you were having trouble fitting your characters into the original 9-category grid? Or was there some other reason?
Looks as good as any set of one-sentence summaries of each can be Though I would also keep @mashers 's point in mind. The official definitions of the alignments are often haphazard and contradictory, and the best way to start an argument on RPG-nerd forums is to insist that one interpretation is better than all the others. I've seen Law/Chaos defined as Law is about supporting the general concept of authority, Chaos is about opposing the general concept Law is about being intelligent enough to form plans, Chaos is about acting randomly Law is about obeying the laws of the land, Chaos is about breaking the laws Law is about working with other people, Chaos is about working alone Or any combination thereof. Personally, I just stick with the first factor instead of trying to force all of them to work together. Partially because I love Myers-Briggs as much as I love Alignment, and the first version of Alignment gives me the most flexibility when combining both systems Spoiler: Wall of Text MyersBriggs: More asocial (I for Introvert) or more social (E for Extravert)? More theoretical (N for iNtuitor) or more practical (S for Sensor)? More insensitive (T for Thinker) or more sensitive (F for Feeler)? More disorganized (P for Perceiver) or more organized (J for Judger)? Alignment: Extremely authoritarian (Lawful), neither extremely authoritarian nor extremely antiauthoritarian (Neutral), or extremely antiauthoritarian (Chaotic)? Extremely moral (Good), neither extremely moral nor extremely immoral (Neutral), or extremely immoral (Evil)? The standard assumption is "Lawful = order = Judger, Chaotic = disorder = Perceiver," but this gives me more flexibility to describe a) characters who are authoritarian about what they need to do, yet loose and flexible about how they need to do it (Lawful Perceivers), and b) characters who are antiauthoritarian about what they want to do, yet methodical and step-by-step about how they want to do it (Chaotic Judgers). For example I myself am a Chaotic Neutral INTP: I'm extremely antiauthoritarian, neither extremely saintly nor extremely sociopathic, asocial, theoretical, disorganized The lead protagonist of the Urban Fantasy novel I'm editing is a Neutral Evil ISTJ: she's neither extremely authoritarian nor extremely antiauthoritarian, extremely sociopathic, asocial, practical, insensitive, organized The first-person peripheral narrator is a Lawful Evil ESFP: he's extremely authoritarian, extremely sociopathic, social, practical, sensitive, disorganized I hate having to play by The Rules™, my narrator loves playing by The Rules™, and my protagonist is pragmatically ambivalent about The Rules™. None of us are saints, but I'm not a sociopath the way my protagonist and narrator are. My protagonist and I are not people-people, but my narrator is. I generally focus on abstract concepts, but my protagonist and narrator both generally focus on practical application. My narrator and I are both flexible and spontaneous, but my protagonist is more methodical. This gives 144 possible character archetypes that can be compared and contrasted in 6 different ways. If your interpretation of the terminology works for what you use it for – building the characters in your story – then it works Also, I think "Rebel Neutral" in the block of "Evil" alignments was a typo It's a matter of degree Rebel is less chaotic than Full Chaotic, Social is less lawful than Full Lawful... I sometimes use the 5x5 too, and in my case at least (which may not be the same for the OP) I just like extra information
