On a New Alignment Chart for Character Development or Shadow Work
We’ve all loved Gary Gygax’s alignment chart, but I’ve come to realize that it’s not enough. Don’t get me wrong; it’s perfectly fine for analyzing most superhero movies, or for creating the usual cast of murder hobos and murder cultists battling it out in your average D&D game. But in application to real life, his terms falter, and I’ve needed qualifiers. His chart is too simple, too ambiguous, and too hyperbolic to be an effective tool for reality — or realistic characters.
There’s a weird bit of dissonance when everyone I like in stories is chaotic good, but most people I know in real life quietly vary between lawful good and neutral neutral. No one is single-handedly taking over the local government, no one is operating a scam center and getting rich so they can build a rocket to live on the moon. The neutral people aren’t antisocial lumps or zen monks, and the lawful among my friends aren’t judgemental paladins, doggedly smiting evil or supporting problematic social institutions. Suddenly debates break out about whether “lawful” means following the established laws (a rather obvious definition) or following their own moral code (a popular definition, except… if a code can be self-defined, is there anyone who DOESN’T follow their own moral code?). Eventually nothing means anything and the conversation has moved on to whether it would be ethical to eat dragons (any dragon? only the evil ones? Okay, “evil” doesn’t exist — just the problematic ones, then?) or whether we’ve read the latest N. K. Jemisin book yet.
Words like “chaotic” have a lot of baggage to them, and words like “evil” are extreme enough to mostly not apply to believable characters, let alone average people in real life.
Of his nine options, I’ve always felt most called to chaotic good — more specifically, I’m called toward the chaotic side, but always tempered by the good. I want everything done differently, but I want to connect with and help people as a result; I want to beautify the world around me, help people flourish, and leave things better for the future. But being chaotic good doesn’t mean I embrace chaos for its own sake — even if I have ADHD; and I do have a moral code I follow. While I don’t see laws as the final determiner of moralistic behavior, I’m also not going around breaking every law I run into. So… I don’t want pure chaos, I follow my own code, and I follow most laws most of the time. I’ve had people argue that “chaotic” can’t fit me, then, even though the “neutral neutral” that most people land at is just… boring and unclear. Let’s dive deeper.
Perhaps you’re like me in this. Perhaps some of your favorite characters and public figures are chaotic, are often tricksters: Loki, Entrapta, Jack Sparrow, Fred and George Weasley, Tank Girl, The Doctor, Cruella (2021), Father Brown, Fleabag, Jack Skellington, Calvin (and Hobbes), Elim Garak, James Acaster, Colin Furze, Alex Horne. My love for them is partially because of their impulsive energy in many cases (as characters who do things boldly are always more interesting than hesitant ones), sure, but it goes beyond that (which is good, because the people who accidentally simplify the continuum from lawful to chaotic to simply be a measure of one’s ADHD seems unhelpful). But here’s another difference: none of these characters I love are content to stay stuck in their current system. Some work within it and some work without it, but they all seek to change it on some level.
But then, as I make that list, I eventually start asking too many questions about what counts as chaotic. Seven of Nine doesn’t act like anyone else on her ship, but she’s not disruptive either, and she’s consistent to a point. Robin Hood, a classic example of chaotic good, tends to operate along a very strict moral code and he doesn’t advocate pure chaos, however much he’s trying to disrupt the system. Harry Potter — another frequently mentioned example of a trickster figure — seems mostly to be fighting personal battles rather than systemic ones, and is generally self-serving. The most disruptive thing he ever did was defeat Voldemort as a child, and he had literally zero agency in the event. After that, he’s just famous, bad at social skills, and jockishly good at everything else. Despite the actor’s predilection for chaos (see image at left), the character is hardly a chaotic icon, and clearly not on par with Robin Hood or The Doctor in terms of societal change! Speaking of Voldemort, is he chaotic? He has caused a lot of disruption and chaos, but he works via clear rules and structures and seeks to regress society. He causes chaos in places, but takes over the government to do so. Does that count? We need a clearer system.
The good vs bad axis has similar issues. What if someone takes care of themselves without hurting — or helping — anyone? Presumably they’re neutral, then, even if they’re really, really nice. What if someone focuses so much on helping others that they destroy themselves in the process — a martyr figure? That’s technically good, but doesn’t sound like a good thing for most people to do. Or what of someone who gives to charity regularly and works hard to support their family and friends, but is kind of a dick to people on the subway? This doesn’t seem like the same level of good as the martyr, but surely we can’t just say everyone is neutral. These hardly seem like they all belong in the same category.
So, I’d like to propose a new, overly-complicated re-phrasing of the graph. Yes, you heard me right. This isn’t simpler, because the original is already simple. This is complicated and less memeable, but that’s the point. This new system has been useful for me in figuring out why some people get along well or poorly with certain other people, it’s been useful in dating and figuring out partner-compatibility, and it’s been useful for me, as an author, in designing characters and creating friction points in plots. Do I think you will all suddenly adopt this? No. But it may catch in your mind, and it’ll be here for your reference, or you can link it for others who are doing shadow work or character design. That’s my plan, at least.
First, let’s consider the Lawful ↔ Neutral ↔ Chaotic axis.
In the simplified version I suggest the binary of Conventional ↔ Innovative as the replacement. In an expanded version, I suggest Regressive ↔ Conventional ↔ Innovative ↔ Subversive.
Regressive: This person seeks to make their own and society’s behaviors change back to “how things used to be” and dislikes the way things are commonly done.
Conventional: This person does what is commonly done and doesn’t seek to change others.
Innovative: This person doesn’t do what’s commonly done but also doesn’t seek to change others.
Subversive: This person seeks to make their own and society’s behaviors change toward “what could be” and dislikes the way things are commonly done.
This scale should add more nuance and allow for the vast majority of people to be more realistically spread across all categories. I fluctuate between innovative and subversive on most issues. Seven of Nine is innovative. Robin Hood is subversive. Harry Potter is mostly innovative. Father Brown is subversive. Loki is innovative. Etc. In effect, this distinguishes between personal anti-establishmentarianism and activist anti-establishmentarianism.
For the Good ↔ Neutral ↔ Evil scale, we have similar issues.
As someone who does not believe in the supernatural or in any archetypal evil, I struggle with the word “evil.” Is it about intent or effect? How do we categorize Trump, who is mean but just seems self-absorbed? What about Thanos, who believes he is doing good and being selfless about it, but is causing extreme harm?
I’m even more sure of my concepts for my revisions of this scale, though I’m less sure about my names. To that end, I’ll suggest two names for each. Perhaps in the comments you can let me know which you prefer.
There are five potential categories here, but the first and last are extremes that are rare-but-possible in mundane life, though common in literature. In a simplified version, just focus on the middle three.
Selfless/Sacrificing: This person helps others as the goal (likely at a cost to self). Uncommon in mundane life.
Benevolent/Communal: This person balances the help of self and others.
Individualistic: This person helps themself so long as it doesn’t hurt others.
Opportunistic/Selfish: This person helps themself at cost to others.
Malevolent/Cruel: This person harms others as the goal (likely at cost to self). Uncommon in mundane life.
While I do not know anyone in my mundane life who I would categorize as evil, I do know a large number of people who are individualistic (I am, much of the time), and I also know (and avoid) a smaller-but-still present group of selfish people. I don’t know any cruel people personally, but it’s much easier for me to see an application of that word in reality.
Thanos thinks he’s doing good, but he’s also doing great harm to others; so regardless of his motives, the cost is strongly on others. I think it would be unfair to call Trump cruel across the board. While he may be cruel at times — seeking revenge on people who have slighted him — his overall behaviors seem to be more self-serving than not; his goal is still to amass power and attention, not to harm for harm’s sake. The pleasure he gets from the pain of others does complicate the distinction between the last two, though.
So that leaves us with a new, full alignment chart, which I’ve presented below.
While all twenty squares do exist, we can kind of fold all of them in to just the central six.
To have fun, let’s come up with some archetypal characters for each of the main six alignments.
These are based out of my own lived experiences (as a relatively-privileged, midwestern, white millennial), of course, and will certainly manifest differently for other people. And yes, I’m working with stereotypes, but that’s… relevant in archetypal work. Enjoy.
Conventional Communal — “The Church Leader”
You’re a good listener, you pay attention to people’s worries, big smile, you make people feel welcome, and you basically keep your flock feeling accepted and content. They probably know less about you than you know about them, but hey, that’s life. If you keep your thoughts and actions good, then everyone around you will too, and surely that’ll have good consequences eventually.
You’re accepting and loving of everyone, even if you’ve never heard of neopronouns and struggle to say the letters LGBT in the usual order. Kids these days need to explore, which worries you, but you trust they’ll come home and turn out good.
You donate money regularly, whether or not you make much. It’s for a good cause, and there are people who need it more than you do. If you haven’t done good shadow work, you may have some repressed issues that’ll haunt you.
Conventional Individualistic — “The 9–5 Business Person”
Head down, taking care of you and anyone dependent on you. The system may not be perfect, but you’re doing your best to work within it and achieve success. Not terribly adventurous, but you do have a regular vacation spot each year, and you like to unwind by doing your regular hobby (D&D, hunting, canoeing, fitness training, trivia night at the bar, quilting, genealogy, whatever). You either don’t like spicy food, or you make a big deal about how into it you are to prove how tough you are. You always mow your lawn regularly and won’t admit it’s because you’re sensitive about what the neighbors will think.
Conventional Selfish — “The Mildly Corrupt Cop/Politician”
You’re not evil, you’re just working the system to get ahead. Despite whatever you’ve told others, your main cause is self-gain, and it sucks for the people around you who don’t know how to watch out for their own interests, but that’s their fault. Hey, it’s not wrong if you didn’t break any rules. You didn’t make the rules (though you wish you did). You don’t owe anyone anything (unless there’s a record of it on paper), and you’re determined to get ahead. Having power over others is the only way to get ahead, and it gets kind of addicting, doesn’t it?
Laws are important; not morally, but because they are tools and you need to know how to cause and avoid various consequences. You need to know the loopholes, what doesn’t get enforced, and how to make certain laws get enforced against others when it’s convenient. You report people on Reddit and Facebook and Twitter, but only when you don’t like them as people.
Innovative Communal — “The Activist/Advocate”
Self care is important, and hopefully you’ve figured out how to do it (or will… eventually. It’s on your list). Decent chance you are pretty stressed over the state of things right now (no matter when now is), but you’ve figured out ways to apply your own time and resources to actively trying to cause positive change in the world around you. Very focused on how different things could/should be, and often find yourself organizing community things. You forget to sit down when you’re hosting an event, but it’s fine because you’re happy that the event seems to be successful so far.
People say they support you, but you need more specific action from them.
Innovative Individualistic — “The Weird Artist Who Lives in that Cabin”
You may have cycled through a few different jobs/careers, or you may still be looking for the right fit. It’s well known you’re a bit weird/eclectic, but definitely in a harmless way. Even if you’re not a witch or an artist or rather into recreational drugs, people have probably mistakenly assumed you were. Very focused on self-improvement, but it ends up manifesting as reading psychology books or designing your own clothes more than reducing your carbon footprint or volunteering at the displaced youth shelter.
You like singing along with Rage Against the Machine, and you’ve felt like you should give back to the community more, but you’re just not sure how.
Innovative Selfish — “The Scammer/Schemer/Troll”
You may think you’re an activist, but you’re not aware that your cause is basically self-entitlement at the cost of others. If you’re a millennial, you were likely very into 4chan, trolling, and rage comics. You might be a venture capitalist or own your own business, or you have plans to. Either way, you always have some new idea on how to get rich quick. Probably into bitcoin. You may have committed fraud. If you’ve neglected to do good shadow work, you’re likely an incel, an anti-masker/vaxxer, a TERF, or some other equivalent based on wherever your insecurities lie.
[After every article, I’ll supply a not-necessarily related musical pairing. Your song for today is “Haute Tropique” by Man Man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92WviBQMSCk]
