Drawbacks to Chaotic Good

So, this thread here about how to make Lawful Good Compelling got me thinking.

We more or less know the flaws (both real and perceived) of Lawful Good. The To Be Lawful or Good trope exists to clarify that.

But what are the drawbacks of Chaotic Good? I feel like they are there, but they don't come up quite as much the drawbacks of Lawful Good do.

So I'm kinda writing this as my own companion piece to the Lawful thread (which I didn't start by the way, but I did post in it) and asking what disadvantages and drawbacks there are to Chaotic Good.

Discuss.

Well, I'm by no means a writer nor do I have a lot of exposure to works that emphasize grid-type alignments, but one thing that comes up is inability to trust in the system even when the system actually does work.

I could see a Chaotic Good character being either unwilling to make firm agreements, or being very willing to break them when it seems to the Good to do so. This could lead to them being seen as untrustworthy.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 25th 2021 at 10:40:17 PM

It is much harder to be a Paladin.

A bit early, but Bump.

I want to hear a bit more, since I got few ideas myself.

Like, not trusting law enforcement doesn't seem all that bad considering how much people trust law enforcement (and government) these days.

At best, you could argue that it undermines the ones who are trying to make things better, but that might not mean much.

A good drawback being of Chaotic Good, I'd say, is an unwillingness to follow unjust laws even when that has consequences that ultimately limit one's ability to do good.

You can't very well do good for the poor and downtrodden if you're stuck in prison camp for freeing one legally owned slave, for instance.

Ehh.

I would argue that freeing a slave, legally owned or not, is always a plus.

Like, if this is a society where you can own slaves, and it's totally within the law to do so, then that's a case where no one would criticize the Chaotic Good person for breaking that law.

Hell, some Lawful Good types might break that law (since they are supposed to be as much good as they are lawful).

Man. This is harder than I thought it would be, and I already expected it to be monumentally tough.

I could see a Chaotic Good person having issues with either following or leading, even when those things might be preferable.

For example, a Chaotic Good person might balk at taking the instruction of a guide and forge off on their own path—and in doing so create delays or encounter undue danger.

Or they might refuse to command others who work better when under a leader, resulting in those others being uncertain and less effective than might otherwise be the case.

I would imagine, on that note, that they'd be rather poor at organising anything—especially anything that involves handling others. An expedition run by a Chaotic Good person might end up hastily scrambling for resources or tools at the last minute, and omit important items.

A business run by a Chaotic Good person might have ineffective contracts—or indeed, no contracts at all. Which is fine while all members are in harmony—but which might result in problems if there is a falling, or a problem member.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Nov 28th 2021 at 9:52:44 PM

I remember reading this on The Other Wiki. It said that some Chaotic Good characters might be reckless and/or mistrustful of legitimate authority.

So, the three big issues inherent with chaotic good are focused on, well, chaos.

First, a chaotic good character is likely to come across as astoundingly arrogant to anyone who lives by the rules of society which they're flouting and there should be consequences to that. To take a really simple low-stakes example, if you show up to a black tie event in jeans and a t-shirt, people will think you're rude. If you show up in black tie to play a friendly game of football with your neighbors, people will think you're crazy. Substituting your judgment for the rules of society will often seem ridiculous to everyone else.

Second, often, though not always, society's rules have reasons for existing. So, let's take a classic example. Robin Hood. Steals from the rich to give to the poor. In most versions this is tax money which is going to be spent on, I dunno, gilding King John's chamber pot. So far, so good. Less good if King John decides, 'okay, they aren't paying their taxes, I withdraw my troops and the Vikings/Orcs/Whatever can have them.' Or to go back to the clothing example above, the reason you don't play football in black tie is that those clothes are expensive and delicate and if they get really dirty they'll either be ruined or very expensive to clean. Flouting that rule is not a good idea.

There tends to be a suggestion that a chaotic good person will somehow know which rules should be flouted and which ones shouldn't and I really question the source of that knowledge. For every 'I'm an abolitionist in a slave society' there was also a 'I'm a tax protester in a society which taxes people.' But even if their morality is a hundred percent correct, their knowledge doesn't have to be.

Let's shift examples a bit. A village is having an economic problem. There's a nearby grove with valuable plants in it. If they could harvest the plants, then they could sell them and solve their problem. There's ancient custom which says 'no, don't go into the grove.' But our chaotic good character isn't going to allow silly superstition (or actual law) to stop them from helping these people. But, oops, turns out a powerful fey creature lives there and you just broke the deal which it made with the villagers ancestors, now it wants them all out (or all dead). Now, if this isn't supposed to just be a diabolus ex machina, you need to sign post and foreshadow, but if you think about it, a very valuable, renewable resource just sitting there waiting for exploitation which no one exploits is pretty mysterious...

Sorry, got a bit longwinded there. Point is, usually the rules have reasons and unless you're very certain those reasons are stupid/evil violating them will probably have negative consequences.

Third, and this seems obvious, it's chaotic. A chaotic good character will have serious trouble building anything which lasts, or organizing anything stable.

One issue I can think of would be said chaotic good character being belligerent and pretentious. They believe that they know best and tend to become very angry if they think someone is "telling them what to do", maybe even spiteful. You could make the point that such a character is good at heart but never emotionally moved past being a bratty teenager.

Edited by Kaiseror on Dec 3rd 2021 at 12:50:41 PM

That just sounds like Chaotic Stupid

A little, but consider that it's not out of the question for people to use untrue superstitions to control others. If there's a good reason to think it's not a real thing, than breaking that rule isn't that stupid.

Not sure which of my examples you feel falls into chaotic stupid, but to be a little broader...

Just like the problem of 'to be lawful or to be good' there is in fact a problem of 'to be chaotic or to be good,' we just tend to ignore it narratively. I believe that this is mostly because as a society America tends to be very uncomfortable with the notion that freedom has some negative consequences. I believe those negative consequences are outweighed by the positive ones, but the negative ones definitely exist.

Edited by ECD on Dec 3rd 2021 at 9:54:22 AM

Can't the drawback be simply summed up as "Chaos"?

Chaos =/= bad so no

Misread your post. My bad.

To actually add to the discussion, Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann did show the drawbacks of chaotic good characters actually running a society: they don't really know how and aren't suited to it in the slightest. When one character actually puts his foot down and decides to give a more lawful approach to things, he ends up being a totalitarian douchebag instead. Even the MC admits he feels more at home out in the wilderness or on the battlefield righting wrongs than trying to change the world from a politicians chair.

You do realize that "Chaos" is Neutral in its natural state, right?

It is a driving force. One that can be used for good and evil.

It picks no sides in any war.

It just is.

Edited by TitanJump on Dec 4th 2021 at 1:37:18 PM

Heyo, this is the person who made the Lawful Good thread you’re referring to! Glad to see my question sparked discussion in other ways!

I don’t have a ton of experience with the Chaotic Good role but from what I’ve seen firsthand there are still drawbacks to be had with the alignment. One I can think of off the top of my head comes from the character’s strong willingness to flaunt conventions that would tether them to a binding set of rules. In this regard it’s kind of an inverse of the main issue Lawful Good characters can face: rather than causing harm through upholding unjust laws or through inaction because such means would be unlawful, Chaotic Good characters can find it very hard to trust Lawful characters who genuinely want to further a noble goal or cause unforeseen damage by flaunting a rule in pursuit of what they feel is right without thinking about why the rule exists in the first place.

As with all alignments, context is a major factor in how characters are handled. Lawful Good characters face conflict when they realize that the law they uphold is not as just as they first thought. As such, Chaotic Good characters can possibly face conflict through the inverse: that the traditions and laws they ignore aren’t as U Njust as they firsr thought. However, this particular route may need special care/handling lest some Unfortunate Implications take place.

Hope this helps a little!

I wrote a novel roughly on this subject a few years back.

One of the leads was very strongly Chaotic Good and he had very strong ideological clashes with leads that were more Lawful Good or even Neutral Good. He was a bit of a Robin Hood type gentleman thief but some of the other characters were a bit concerned that his definition of "The Poor" had a conspicuous overlap with "His Friends" and other characters called him out on hypocrisy when he called out the upper classes on their rampant cronyism when he blatantly played favoritism with his pals when it came to the spoils of his robberies. He was also a lot more judgmental than the All-Loving Hero he tried to paint himself as - in particular he had a nasty habit of calling the in-universe equivalent to Godwin's Law on anyone who disagreed with his methods, even if they were largely working towards the same goals just in a more LG ways. A lot of the more LG or NG characters were reformists and he was mad that they weren't revolutionaries, and they tried to warn him about the dangers of a Cyclical Revolution. The tipping point was when CG and a bunch of other protags survived what appeared to be a humanity-ending apocalypse and believed they were the only humans left alive. When the rest of the group decided to reintroduce a societal system, one of the first things they did was show CG the door - they didn't trust him not to undermine their attempts at making a (reasonably egalitarian) society because they (correctly) assumed he'd become a rebel-without-a-cause in absentia of anything worthy to fight against.

Not to say CG never had points the narrative treated as valid (he was Chaotic Good after all) - the things he called out the upper classes for were real problems and contrary to the concerns of his friends he did limit his robberies to the exceptionally jerkass elite and spared those who were doing their best to support those less fortunate. Another character in the work was a bit mindlessly LG and also learned the error of his ways. In general I was trying to go for Gray-and-Grey Morality.

Bumping this again.

Honestly, I'm wondering if it's really possible.

I'll confess that I'm surprised—I feel that a few decent approaches have been suggested, at least.

They've been interesting, and I want to hear more, but I don't know.

Nothing really sounds as 100% solid as with deconstructions of Lawful Good.

Like, these days, not trusting authority seems painfully logical, and it feel like you have to jump through a lot more hoops to make sticking it to the man seem like a bad idea.

But maybe I'm being cynical. I still want to hear more myself. Like, if we keep going we can come up with more good stuff.

I don't know: Not trusting authority just because it's authority may mislead one too—even today.

Plus, remember that Chaos isn't, if I'm not much mistaken, just about authority—it's about structure and bonds. It's about not keeping to one's word—which promotes distrust of one—about rejecting social structure—which may leave one vulnerable—about following whim rather than plan—which may result in one being perceived as unreliable—and so on. Or at least, so it seems to me.

Or, I suppose, put it this way: A Lawful character might be seen as a problem due to inflexibility; a Chaotic character might be seen as a problem due to unreliability.

There's also the issue of possible self-righteousness which is also a flaw frequently seen in lawful good. They could believe that they know better than everyone else (especially authority figures) and react poorly to any perceived criticism.

So, I think the reason there isn't quite as good a narrative tension for chaotic good as lawful good is that the problems of chaotic good tend to arise more slowly and at a broader level.

You can have the lawful good character's liege tell them to go burn down a village and boom, conflict between the two.

For chaotic good, usually the problem is going to arise at a more cultural level and over a longer period of time in dissolution of trust and bonds on anything except a personal level. Chaotic societies are inherently low trust and that is damaging to the society and can easily produce damaging spirals as cynicism is rewarded and corruption spreads.

ETA: Another issue is the general unwillingness to allow a chaotic good character to be wrong in their rebelliousness. It's never the case that King John really needs that tax money to defend the kingdom.

Edited by ECD on Dec 27th 2021 at 6:34:11 AM