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.

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.

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.

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.

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.