Can there be chaotic good?

[Kanra Jest]

Chaotic Neutral! Raise your Glass!

 

[Lark]

Who thinks that "pure evil is chaotic evil"? (cheers [MENTION=109]Gen[/MENTION]tlemanJack)

I've been thinking about this because most of the time when I consider popular ideas about what evil is they are generally tinged with all sorts of archetypical thinking about powerful, usually institutionalised, but very highly orderly systems and individuals presiding over those systems.

I appreciate that there's probably a cultural dimension to this, and I'm aware too that I'm part of the anglosphere which I think has a huge unacknowledged cultural dimension much of the time, but this does appear to be something of an over arching theme, when I've read confucian and taoist thinking (which I consider to be on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to human nature and any idea of natural or innate goodness) it even seems to be the case there too.

Although, in some of the criticisms of this sort of evil there are clever (probably accurate) observations about the nature of the orderly character of the evil, that it is a facade, or it is more "to appearances", than in reality.

One of the best portrayals of this that I can think of (also a classic criticism of bureaucracy, which is as savage and violent as 1984 or any other depictions, its just done in such an odd, quirky, pythonesque manner that people often dont have that visceral gut reaction to it) is in Brazil, where the breakdowns in infrastructure, technology and the power supply are being caused by bureaucracy but blamed on anonymous terrorism and sabotage.

Although that is fiction, I've read about examples of it from within Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, in both fact and theory, one example from Italy involved someone being called into a room to consult with an official on statistics for their department and being aware there was a pool of blood in the centre of the room that no one was talking about, another was in the correspondence of Hitler in which a junior office of a branch of his party complained about the leader and proceduralism and Hitler told him that if he was strong enough he should simply seize control and procedure be damned.

So there is perhaps a reality in that even the most seemingly "lawful", ie orderly, evil has, if you scratch the surface, a majorly chaotic dimension underneath.

A lot of what I've read about life within the post-communist eastern european states would bare this out too, a lot of the histories of life within communist states would aswell, and I wonder if, in its own way, this is actually trending in other sorts of states too or what it takes to get that started and perpetuate it for a couple of generations.

 

[Earl Grey]

I imagine that the good-evil spectrum has to do with self interest. So chaotic evil is bending the laws for one's own gain, chaotic good is bending the laws for the good of many (think Robin Hood), because laws on their own have no morality (the morality itself is subjective and can be inserted to the law, but come from the people themselves).

 

[Andy]

I have a lot to say on this, including the latest rules and some reference to Kant in so far as he thought people should act as though their behaviour should become a universal law but for now I just want to kick it off (plus I am on a phone).

It is a reference to the DnD character classes typology but I am presuming no real knowledge of the same, just in general what do you think?

I haven't read any D&D past the 3rd edition, so I can't comment on that.

I think that a lot of people assume that in D&D chaotic means opposed to law, i.e. criminal or anarchistic. I don't think that is necessarily the case. A commoner who choses the life of an itinerant labourer because it allows them to travel from place to place, seeing the world and experiencing a variety of jobs is essentially chaotic, yet law abiding, as they prefer not to be tied down to any one thing for long. Such an individual would appreciate basic law enforcement, as anarchy would encourage violent crime, making it harder for them to live the life they want.


I guess, what I'm saying is that chaotic can indicate changeability rather volatility. Thus, if the commoner mentioned above is of a kind and generous disposition, inclined to help out when he stumbled across a situation that needs his help, than that person can be considered chaotic good.

 

[Lark]

I haven't read any D&D past the 3rd edition, so I can't comment on that.

I think that a lot of people assume that in D&D chaotic means opposed to law, i.e. criminal or anarchistic. I don't think that is necessarily the case. A commoner who choses the life of an itinerant labourer because it allows them to travel from place to place, seeing the world and experiencing a variety of jobs is essentially chaotic, yet law abiding, as they prefer not to be tied down to any one thing for long. Such an individual would appreciate basic law enforcement, as anarchy would encourage violent crime, making it harder for them to live the life they want.


I guess, what I'm saying is that chaotic can indicate changeability rather volatility. Thus, if the commoner mentioned above is of a kind and generous disposition, inclined to help out when he stumbled across a situation that needs his help, than that person can be considered chaotic good.

Lawful could be orderly and there is a dichotomy of orderly law versus spontaneous/chaotic.

 

[Andy]

Lawful could be orderly and there is a dichotomy of orderly law versus spontaneous/chaotic.

Agreed. When I say people assume chaos is opposed to law, I mean law as in the law of the land - the law. As you say, it is difficult to be both ordered and unpredictable at the same time.


Lawful neutral is another alignment people tend to have very fixed ideas about. It is often dubbed lawful stupid, due to the assumption it means following rules to the letter, regardless of consequences. However, if you look at a lawful alignment as being a preference for order, rather than just rules, other interpretations can be seen. A wise LN character sees the law as a way of a achieving order - a means to an end. Such a character would be happy to 'overlook' laws that would create social disorder if enforced.

For example, such a character would understand that the idea of a 'rightful king' is just a tool to encourage people to obey their rulers. Every royal line can be traced back to a ruthless bastard who took power without any particular president, except that no-one could stop them. Thus, they would be happy to support a usurper against the 'rightful' king, if the current ruler is incompetent enough to justify the effort and disorder, even if the usurper is a bit of a bastard. In the long run, that is the best way to maintain order.

 

[Lark]

Agreed. When I say people assume chaos is opposed to law, I mean law as in the law of the land - the law. As you say, it is difficult to be both ordered and unpredictable at the same time.


Lawful neutral is another alignment people tend to have very fixed ideas about. It is often dubbed lawful stupid, due to the assumption it means following rules to the letter, regardless of consequences. However, if you look at a lawful alignment as being a preference for order, rather than just rules, other interpretations can be seen. A wise LN character sees the law as a way of a achieving order - a means to an end. Such a character would be happy to 'overlook' laws that would create social disorder if enforced.

For example, such a character would understand that the idea of a 'rightful king' is just a tool to encourage people to obey their rulers. Every royal line can be traced back to a ruthless bastard who took power without any particular president, except that no-one could stop them. Thus, they would be happy to support a usurper against the 'rightful' king, if the current ruler is incompetent enough to justify the effort and disorder, even if the usurper is a bit of a bastard. In the long run, that is the best way to maintain order.

That sounds a little bit more like what I understand as neutral good though.

I totally understand how lawful neutral could appear like lawful stupid but I can also think of versions of lawful neutral in history, such as Bushido codes and even times when people following them have appeared stupid, its probably analogous to the "divine right of kings" to a modern mind (or probably a lot of things people hold to be true about the status quo or some fashionable solutions to contemporary problems).

Like imagine committing suicide because your master, leader, temple, monarch etc. has died, which was requisite in some forms of Bushido.

The only thing that I can say is that at the time in question people must have been emerging from such a state of lawlessness that lawful, as in orderly, conduct got elevated to something else altogether, and I'm also willing to bet that people werent fools anymore than they are today, probably knew that it was at best a half truth but thought that was a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Plus, most of the time, the lawful neutral type isnt going to be pursuing minutia, which I think would be like some kind of procedural bureaucrat type (or, perversely, some sort of rogue chaotic type clever enough to kind of use what it dislikes against itself), but probably fighting or questing over "big questions" style ideas.

 

[Lark]

When I was thinking about this lately, there are some examples of chaotic good which spring to mind actually, like Ash from Evil Dead and Army of Darkness.

Even the character that survives to the end of Cabin In The Woods, although that film deals a bit with archetypes and does discuss the idea of the "fool" in horror movies.

That is a theme of a kind and I think its even the case in examples like Forrest Gump.

It is a strange equation of "foolishness" with innocence, I remember someone telling me this was why they thought George Bush Jr was popular in the US despite what anyone thought of him on the international stage, because US voters were not inclined to elect clever politicians because of anti-intellectualism and some sort of belief that imbeciles were unlikely to be plotting anything.

 

[Mole]

The authoritarian personality can't tell the difference between chaos and creativity, and the authoritarian personality seeks to impose order on both chaos and creativity, damaging the freeedom needed by creativity to function.

The authoritarian personality comes from the author, but not only is the book dead, the author is dead, and the God of the Book is dead. And the authoritarian personality is starting to smell.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Yes. Utilitarianism is chaotic good. I didn't realize this was me for the longest time.

The Utilitarian believes in equality for all sentient beings, no matter race, gender, sexual preference or species. The Utilitarian only obeys "the ten commandments" or general social rules up to the point that they are advisable for realistically ascribing happiness to living beings in the situation. Utilitarians will lie where lying is wrong, but only to save people from slave owners or racists or Hitler. Utilitarians value human happiness like Secular Humanists, but only up to the point that it doesn't hurt other sentient beings, like pigs and dolphins. The Utilitarian is only good as the situation demands. Blind rule following is seen as a stupidity.


Chaotic Good, son.

- - - Updated - - -

I imagine that the good-evil spectrum has to do with self interest. So chaotic evil is bending the laws for one's own gain, chaotic good is bending the laws for the good of many (think Robin Hood), because laws on their own have no morality (the morality itself is subjective and can be inserted to the law, but come from the people themselves).

Yes!

 

[Drapeaux]

I think a more interesting question is how many evil people identify as chaotic good? Does any evil person actually identify as lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil?

 

[Wunjo]

I think a more interesting question is how many evil people identify as chaotic good? Does any evil person actually identify as lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil?

My answer would be "yes" for your second question, for there are practical examples of self-aware evil; for contrary to Arendt, I don't think evil is completely banale. It mostly is; most evil men are following orders, or think that they are serving something greater or serving themselves but there is self-aware evil. It is possible for a person to be aware of the objective (as much as it can be) fact that they are evil, and keep on being so.

 

[Drapeaux]

My answer would be "yes" for your second question, for there are practical examples of self-aware evil; for contrary to Arendt, I don't think evil is completely banale. It mostly is; most evil men are following orders, or think that they are serving something greater or serving themselves, there is self-aware evil. It is possible for a person to be aware of the objective (as much as it can be) fact that they are evil, and keep on being so.

Do you identify as chaotic good?