Thread by @IntuitMachine

The alignment chart that has its origins in Dungeons and Dragons has a fascinating choice of just two dimensions that comprehensively shape a characters' behavior. theatlantic.com/technology/arc…

'A “good” moral alignment means a character will lean toward altruism and personal sacrifice. Evil means harming and oppressing. A neutral person is one who wouldn’t kill somebody for no reason, but wouldn’t protect anybody for no reason either.'

'lawfulness,“implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.'

'Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.”

It's interesting to me that the labels themselves have a bias. Good is preferred over evil and lawfully is preferred over chaos. I feel the need for more neutral labels.

Good places higher priority for the well-being of the collective. The opposite prioritizes the individual. Therefore many libertarians would object to the label 'evil'.

Lawful prioritizes established prescriptions. Chaos prioritizes principles over rigid rules. Anarchists would argue that their chaotic methods are a good thing.

The two axes can be relabeled as "Collective vs Individual" and "Convention vs Creativity". These are two axes are surprisingly captured by Peirce's predicaments.

The D&D moral alignment chart captures all 3 universal tensions. The lawful-chaos axis conflates a 3rd tension (order-chaos) with (convention-creativity). It should be no surprise why we see the chart applicable to so many domains.