So to pick on him, Nivenus gives a very good short law and chaos run down. But then he blows it by defining Good in a way that is practically a synonym for law, and Evil in a way that is practically a synonym for how he has defined chaos.
The essential nature of both law and good can't be 'acting selflessly'. Likewise, the essential nature of both chaos and evil can't be 'acting selfishly'. There is I think more too it than that. After all, 'lawful evil' is 'evil that acts selflessly' because that's what the individual components of the LE society does. And likewise, 'chaotic good' is 'good that acts self-centeredly'. People often have a very hard time with that last one, but one of the more obvious examples is the Maxim: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Note, I'm not arguing Christianity is CG, and don't want to go there.) That 'golden rule' has often been criticized because it defines good in a relationship to oneself - the assumption of what you want best for yourself is what is best for others as well. There is a giving aspect to it, but its a giving in relationship to the self and depending on your own consciousness to be the judge. Not everyone is happy with that being part of the idea of what good is.
If I can reply to that, perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but I think there's a pretty big difference between "society's needs come before individuals" and "one should put the good of others before oneself." For instance, a chaotic good character might put the needs of individuals before those of the majority or even society at a whole, but they still think of others before themselves.
Malcolm Reynolds from
Firefly is arguably chaotic good, but he still acts selflessly on many occasions. I don't think individualism is at odds with selflessness and compassion - it can just as easily be a different interpretation of it. Similarly, collectivism doesn't have to equate to selflessness - it can just as easily be about making everyone the way you
think or
want them to be, even if it harms them in the process.
Conversely, Redcloak from
Order of the Stick is Lawful Evil. This isn't just because he happens to serve an evil god - he believes firmly in order and the idea of putting the needs of the many before the few, but he defines the needs of the many
specifically as other goblinoids and is willing to endanger all of reality in order to help them achieve parity with the other races. This is the goal of a Lawful character, but that hardly makes Redcloak anything but evil.
Perhaps selfish and selflessness aren't the right terms - but I think by focusing on them (which I mentioned only in part of my descriptions) I think you're ignoring the items I
actually listed as predominantly defining good and evil:
Good is about doing the right thing and acting selflessly to help others even when there is no reward. Good characters at their most essential are philanthropic individuals, who sometimes go out of their way to help others and who believe that everyone deserves a second chance. Forgiveness, compassion, and generosity are hallmarks of this alignment.
Evil is about doing what it takes to put yourself (or those whom you associate with) ahead, no matter who else it hurts or harms. Evil characters aren't necessarily entirely selfish, but they are largely apathetic to the needs or wants of others. Untempered greed, malevolence, and spite are hallmarks of this alignment.
Perhaps "untempered greed" should be replaced with pride but the point stands that I consider these to be the chief qualifiers of good and evil using the nine-alignment system. And I think, for the most part, the way they're usually defined supports that.