Feeling Chaotic Neutral: Character Alignment Paradoxes
By Turk on Monday, January 12, 2009 at 6:03 pm
For the last hour or so, I have been discussing character alignment paradoxes with Aaron Brazell (@technosailor on Twitter) on Facebook. It all started with a simple status update.
Aaron is in a Chaotic Neutral mood.
For those who don’t get the reference, chaotic neutral refers to one of nine character “alignments” in Dungeons & Dragons. Think of them like a matrix. Lawfulness versus Chaos is essentially your adherence to the laws of society, whereas Good and Evil are your moral/ethical disposition.

Now here’s the problem, and the jumping off point for the discussion with Aaron. I contend that chaotic good and chaotic evil are false choices. Good and evil, just like law and lawlessness, lie on a continuum. That is, there is an order to them. There are degrees between them.
Chaos, on the other hand, is completely random. There is no order at all. Therefore, a chaotic character would be just as likely to be good as evil. As Aaron said, everything becomes situational. A chaotic good character would always tend toward the good. If they are chaotic evil, they would always tend toward evil. By that logic, they have applied order to their own lives. They have chosen a path, and a path, by nature, is not chaotic.
It’s like Johnny Depp’s line from Pirates of the Caribbean.
Me? I’m dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
A truly chaotic person can always be counted on to be chaotic, and that means they’re just as lokely as not to swing toward good or evil. As Paul Rodriguez (@pjrodriguez) said, “[A] Chaotic Neutral person might hit you in the face one day and gave you a $100 bill the next and then borrow your car, use all the gas, but [leave] a TV in the back seat.”
That’s pretty much exactly it. In a fight against long odds, a chaotic person would be just as likely to stay with you and fight as they would be to stab you in the leg so they could outrun you in retreat. They’re chaotic, and chaos defies patterns. If they always tend toward good (or evil for that matter) you could always know what they would do within a certain range.
So do chaotic good and chaotic evil exist? I don’t believe they can, and therefore the whole D&D continuum is off. I think the continuum should look more like this:

Anything below neutrality in regard to morals (good and evil) and lawfulness would fall into a base category of Chaotic. You would have no idea what they would do or what their moral leanings would be. I think it would be a much better framework. Frankly, with people stabbing each other in the leg, I think it would make the game more interesting.
Comments (5)
Category: Craziness, Gaming, Miscellany, Pop Culture, Society, The Law
Comment by Keith Casey
Made Monday, 12 of January , 2009 at 7:10 pm
Personally, I’ve always thought of it in relation to respecting the law, honor, etc. A Chaotic decision-maker in general would ignore the law, common customs, etc to get the job done whereas a Lawful decision-maker would tend to play within the rules respecting those laws, customs, and honor.
In terms of playing the game, I’ve always thought that a Lawful Evil character would be a black knight bound to a code of personal honor but working towards evil or potentially the traditional bully enforcing their version of order. Alternatively, a Chaotic Evil character would just as likely stab you in the back than anything else.
Does that create some semblance of Order? I don’t think so… predictability/consistency is not the same as order.
Comment by Turk
Made Tuesday, 13 of January , 2009 at 12:19 am
I agree that the concept of chaotic has been set up, by D&D lore, as the opposite of lawful. Therefore, law versus lawless is essentially the choice.
The law, as a societal tool is essentially a rulebook of what’s right and what’s wrong. In order to have “right” or “wrong” then you need to have a judgment that one path is preferable (good) to another (bad or evil).
So the two systems operate a unifying concept. Someone who chooses lawlessness would most likely not recognize the framework of the legal system. They would not agree that one option is good and another bad in a legal sense.
If that’s the case, why would they accept that framework as valid for anything else?
I understand your perspective, but just don’t see, for instance, what the distinction between a Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Good would be. Once you assign good and bad to chaotic, it’s no longer chaotic. You can always count on them to be one or the other.
The Chaotic Evil character would be Sparrow’s dishonest man. You could always count on them to be unpredictable because they would serve their own needs ahead of anyone else. They would also have no restraints on how they did that.
The Chaotic Good choice would be another story. If you believe that lawlessness means disrespecting the law, and the law is society’s rulebook, then simply being Chaotic, by default, can’t be “good”. If they are “good”, they simply would not violate societal norms and therefore would not be chaotic.
Comment by Keith Casey
Made Tuesday, 13 of January , 2009 at 5:15 pm
It sounds like you’re equating “good” with “legal”. In my understanding, a Chaotic character would follow whichever laws he/she choose, but not because they’re the law, but because it’s convenient (or not contradictory) towards their goals.
Then it’s the means and the goals where good/evil comes into play. In DnD terms, a Chaotic Good character in the midst of a barroom brawl may throw some punches, but his focus would likely be on the safety of his friends, whoever might have wronged him, and the general excitement of it. A Chaotic Evil character in the same situation may settle some old scores with rivals or attempt to rob the patrons.
But you do raise another good point… a Lawful Good character may not tolerate a Chaotic Good character due to the regular violation of societal norms and the same Chaotic character may consider the same Lawful character boring and stuffy.
Regardless, some interesting dynamics.
Comment by Turk
Made Tuesday, 13 of January , 2009 at 9:43 pm
I’m not equating good with legal. I’m equating lawful with legal. Lawful and chaotic are opposite poles – following a moral order or not. Lawful would be the following of one’s moral code (or intrinsic laws). Lawful good would be the following of a “good” moral code (be kind to others, protect the weak, etc). Lawful evil would be the following of a strict moral code at odds with the societal norms.
Chaotic would be the absence of a moral code to follow.
However, since good and evil are moral judgments, you can’t simultaneously have a moral “position” and a lack of a moral code. It just doesn’t make sense.
Comment by armedjoy
Made Wednesday, 16 of December , 2009 at 10:35 pm
You’re not equating Lawful with legal, you’re equating Lawful which moral, which is wrong. A Lawful Evil character isn’t Lawful because they follow an “evil” moral code, they’re Lawful because they exploit the laws to their own selfish ends. Similarly, a Lawful Good character believes that the law is the best means to support their own, positive ends.
A Chaotic Good character simply believes that goodness is better served by removing law than advocating it. A Neutral Good character will follow the laws that serve goodness and break the ones that don’t. Simple.
You must be logged in to post a comment.