But Chaotic Good is how many today operate by virtue of living today. Many heroes and defenders of the good operate within this ethos. It is, in so many ways, consequentialism lived out. But not entirely. By virtue of good, it would balk at doing actual evil that good may come of it. The answer to Caiaphas's famous question would be a resounding 'No!'
Nonetheless, on the other hand, the idea that those rascally rules and procedures of this button down, conformist society have just got to go plays large. Rules were made to be broken. It's not 'if it feels good, it is good.' Nor is it 'no rules, just right.' But it lives with an almost ingrained disdain for law and order. Sure laws must exist. Rules must happen. But only up until the common good is in any way infringed upon. At that point, the rule or law is the first thing to go.
Again, it's not for evil. Evil will not be done. That's not to say harsh measures may not happen, and some may argue whether such grave decisions as the one that led to the vaporization of Hiroshima falls here or elsewhere. Certainly it may ask the question of moral relativity. In this regard, Chaotic Good is not the easiest alignment. At what time does one kill the prisoners and still remain good? Even if it's for the greater good and the prisoners are evil? In fact, in many ways, hearkening back to those peace loving hippies, many of that ilk would resist such things as the death penalty and even all war, no matter what the cost.
So it's a little tougher than at first glance. Still, on the whole, and for game purposes, it's the alignment for the free spirit, the person who lives within a rules-set only out of necessity, but will gladly break any law, lie, steal, or do anything short of evil for the greater good, particularly the good of the individual. And at times, the CG will see the good of the individual as supreme to, if not entirely incompatible with, the good of the common law.
Some examples:
There can be no more famous, or better, example of CG in modern fiction than Harry Potter. Was there ever a rule that kid didn't break? He and his compatriots lie, steal, break rules, violate standards. We won't even get into Dumbledore's turn around from wise sage to Machiavellian plotter. The whole series is a testament to the modern notion that authority is almost always suspect, and when it comes to being good, there just aren't many rules when you're doing it for the individual good.
Batman of course, especially in the Nolan manifestation, is almost borderline Chaotic Neutral, but that his goals are for the greater good. He operates outside of the laws he tries to protect. And that's important. Robin Hood is mentioned here again because while I speculated he would loyally follow a good leader (and Scott's Robin makes that seem more likely), most portryals show him while he fights the evils of Prince John. To that end, he rebels against the rules on a daily basis. But they are evil laws and rules, and there's the trick. Yes, Robin might well be CG all the way, even when the leader is good and the laws are good. We only see him when the laws are ministered by forces of darkness.
Unlike Batman, he seems content to operate within the structure as long as the structure is good. The structure is good in Gotham. Murder and stealing and breaking and entering are wrong And there are good cops enforcing that. Nonetheless, Batman chooses to operate outside of those laws for the greater good. Robin? It's hard to say, and a case could be made either way. But in any event, none of these folks are lawful in the least, and with the possible exception of Robin, who may simply put the good above all things, they are willing to go against laws, rules and standards as a first resort. The classic Chaotic Good.
No comments:
Post a Comment