The chaotic good alignment isn’t any less good because they can simply follow the just laws and break the unjust laws. They might resent the institution of law, but they aren’t obliged to do the opposite of the law, they just will do it for their own reasons instead of the legality. They’re still fundamentally good.
A lawful good character would probably prefer legal methods to fight legal injustice, while a chaotic good character might prefer to break the law as they don’t see legal methods as worth anything/don’t recognize its authority. Both are Good, but they might use different methods when confronted with the same problem.
Maybe I’m confused what you mean. Being opposed to the concept of laws doesn’t mean you need to break them; you can still think “people shouldn’t murder” or “slavery is bad”. I don’t think incidentally following laws makes you not Chaotic. You just don’t care what the law is; you’d be doing the same thing regardless of whether it was the law or not.
Besides, I’m not sure “opposed to the concept of laws” is really true for all but the most extreme examples of CG. It seems like its more about wanting freedom than just hating laws themselves.
Being opposed to the concept of laws doesn’t mean you need to break them
True, but being opposed to the concept of laws means that you’re more inclined to break laws to achieve your aims than to work within the law.
Chaotic in this context means that you consider the very concept of law an impediment to justice whereas “do good things regardless of whether they’re lawful or illegal” kind of behavior you’re ascribing to chaotic good is the textbook definition of NEUTRAL good.
Besides, I’m not sure “opposed to the concept of laws” is really true for all but the most extreme examples of CG
There’s vast differences of scale, sure, but lawful - neutral - chaotic is about your relationship with laws as a concept that governs the actions of people for better or worse.
It seems like its more about wanting freedom than just hating laws themselves.
Nah, freedom and law aren’t inherently in opposition to each other.
Sure, some laws restrict your freedom to do certain things that lawmakers want to discourage for one reason or the other, but some other laws are there to PROTECT your freedom to do other things deemed desirable or value neutral.
Just like some laws existing to protect consumers from being exploited by corporations and others existing to protect corporations from the consumers they exploit doesn’t make “law” and “exploitation” synonyms or antonyms.
I agree that chaotic characters would be more inclined to break laws. But I suppose to circle back, I don’t see why that makes them any less Good.
Even your description of “law is an impediment to justice” sounds like a CG character would just do whatever they want without letting laws stop them, while NG might be more likely to consider whether or not to follow the law in any given circumstance and perhaps adjust their plan to be slightly more lawful, while CG might not respect the rule of law at all and just break into the prison and free the slaves or whatever.
Neutral Good (NG). Neutral Good creatures do the best they can, working within rules but not feeling bound by them. A kindly person who helps others according to their needs is probably Neutral Good.
Chaotic Good (CG). Chaotic Good creatures act as their conscience directs with little regard for what others expect. A rebel who waylays a cruel baron’s tax collectors and uses the stolen money to help the poor is probably Chaotic Good.
Side note: I agree that law and freedom aren’t necessarily in opposition as pure concepts. But part of my argument is that CG characters wouldn’t innately hate objectively good laws like “don’t keep slaves”. The laws they’d take issue with are ones that limit freedom, like “don’t steal”. Most probably wouldn’t be ideologues campaigning for the destruction of the government but they might just steal to fund their Good.
The chaotic good alignment isn’t any less good because they can simply follow the just laws and break the unjust laws. They might resent the institution of law, but they aren’t obliged to do the opposite of the law, they just will do it for their own reasons instead of the legality. They’re still fundamentally good.
A lawful good character would probably prefer legal methods to fight legal injustice, while a chaotic good character might prefer to break the law as they don’t see legal methods as worth anything/don’t recognize its authority. Both are Good, but they might use different methods when confronted with the same problem.
That would be the very definition of NG, not CG.
No, but they’re actively opposed to the very concept of laws. That’s what “chaotic” means in this context.
Maybe I’m confused what you mean. Being opposed to the concept of laws doesn’t mean you need to break them; you can still think “people shouldn’t murder” or “slavery is bad”. I don’t think incidentally following laws makes you not Chaotic. You just don’t care what the law is; you’d be doing the same thing regardless of whether it was the law or not.
Besides, I’m not sure “opposed to the concept of laws” is really true for all but the most extreme examples of CG. It seems like its more about wanting freedom than just hating laws themselves.
True, but being opposed to the concept of laws means that you’re more inclined to break laws to achieve your aims than to work within the law.
Chaotic in this context means that you consider the very concept of law an impediment to justice whereas “do good things regardless of whether they’re lawful or illegal” kind of behavior you’re ascribing to chaotic good is the textbook definition of NEUTRAL good.
There’s vast differences of scale, sure, but lawful - neutral - chaotic is about your relationship with laws as a concept that governs the actions of people for better or worse.
Nah, freedom and law aren’t inherently in opposition to each other.
Sure, some laws restrict your freedom to do certain things that lawmakers want to discourage for one reason or the other, but some other laws are there to PROTECT your freedom to do other things deemed desirable or value neutral.
Just like some laws existing to protect consumers from being exploited by corporations and others existing to protect corporations from the consumers they exploit doesn’t make “law” and “exploitation” synonyms or antonyms.
I agree that chaotic characters would be more inclined to break laws. But I suppose to circle back, I don’t see why that makes them any less Good.
Even your description of “law is an impediment to justice” sounds like a CG character would just do whatever they want without letting laws stop them, while NG might be more likely to consider whether or not to follow the law in any given circumstance and perhaps adjust their plan to be slightly more lawful, while CG might not respect the rule of law at all and just break into the prison and free the slaves or whatever.
Side note: I agree that law and freedom aren’t necessarily in opposition as pure concepts. But part of my argument is that CG characters wouldn’t innately hate objectively good laws like “don’t keep slaves”. The laws they’d take issue with are ones that limit freedom, like “don’t steal”. Most probably wouldn’t be ideologues campaigning for the destruction of the government but they might just steal to fund their Good.