Like lawful vs chaotic or good vs evil? Maybe if you vacillate between the extremes, neutral?There won’t be many thousands of key words, there will be a few that get trotted out, time and again.

Like lawful vs chaotic or good vs evil? Maybe if you vacillate between the extremes, neutral?There won’t be many thousands of key words, there will be a few that get trotted out, time and again.
It depends on how you play those things.This seems rather incoherent to me.
Consider a paladin type:
Ideal: I will defend the weak. Or maybe I will exact righteous vengeance upon the wicked!
Bond: My king. Or perhaps My god.
Flaw: Lack of humility. Or for a different flavour, Sometimes I doubt.
Or a gentle monastic type:
Ideal: I will relieve suffering. Or My prayers will bring salvation to all.
Bond: My abbot. Or My monastery. Or Those in whose company I travel.
Flaw: I long for a comfortable bed. Or I lack patience with unbelievers. Or maybe I speak too much.
How could either of those characters be LE?
I think you are misunderstanding the approach described by myself, @Manbearcat and @pemerton, because this is not the case.There won’t be many thousands of key words, there will be a few that get trotted out, time and again.
I sketched some situations in broad terms. How does a CE dragon approach them?General outlook on society and where they’ll go when they die. A general 8 direction steer to how characters will approach a situation, in broad terms.
How a creature interacts with its children is not a broad question.I sketched some situations in broad terms. How does a CE dragon approach them?
Would you agree that a player who writes as his/her PC's ideal I will protect the weak is probably not meaning what you have said here? And that if they wanted to state what you have written as their ideal, they would write the whole thing out? In which case I don't think anyone would suppose that such a person would fall within the scope of LG as generally understood."I will protect the weak . . . by killing any strong being I find, can't trust 'em".
I posted a range of scenarios which are pretty typical in FRPGing: relationships to children (and by implication other innocents to whom one might have an emotional or sentimental connection); relationships to servitors like ogres; various sorts of conduct by adventurers (swaggering confrontation; grovelling and begging for mercy; etc). If alignment doesn't answer those, where is it helping with characterisation? What difference would it make to replace the CE label on a dragon with nasty?How a creature interacts with its children is not a broad question.
This seems rather incoherent to me.
Consider a paladin type:
Ideal: I will defend the weak. Or maybe I will exact righteous vengeance upon the wicked!
Bond: My king. Or perhaps My god.
Flaw: Lack of humility. Or for a different flavour, Sometimes I doubt.
How could either of those characters be LE?
Or a gentle monastic type:
Ideal: I will relieve suffering. Or My prayers will bring salvation to all.
Bond: My abbot. Or My monastery. Or Those in whose company I travel.
Flaw: I long for a comfortable bed. Or I lack patience with unbelievers. Or maybe I speak too much.
How could either of those characters be LE?
No. That's not what anyone is saying from what I can tell. We are saying that a given trait can be used for good if the PC is good, or evil if the PC is evil. A good PC is not generally going to use the evil version(s) and the evil PC is not generally going to use the good version(s).@Oofta, are you asserting - as @Helldritch did - that a character might have your traits you have set out and be either LG or LE? Eg that a character might have the ideal of killing everyone and yet be LG?