Nah, he’s neutral evil since he both breaks the law when he wants to and exploits it when he can.
Aa law isn’t inherently good or evil, that axis doesn’t have anything to do with HOW evil he is.
In fact, I’d argue that, in a world where some laws (like “don’t murder” and “don’t enslave your workers”) are good but others (like “you don’t have equal rights if you’re any kind of minority or a woman” or “corporations have all of the rights of people and none of the responsibilities”) are inherently oppressive, the only consistently GOOD alignment is Neutral 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.
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.
Nah, he’s neutral evil since he both breaks the law when he wants to and exploits it when he can.
Aa law isn’t inherently good or evil, that axis doesn’t have anything to do with HOW evil he is.
In fact, I’d argue that, in a world where some laws (like “don’t murder” and “don’t enslave your workers”) are good but others (like “you don’t have equal rights if you’re any kind of minority or a woman” or “corporations have all of the rights of people and none of the responsibilities”) are inherently oppressive, the only consistently GOOD alignment is Neutral 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.