Chaosmancer
Legend
You assume that D&D carries moral absolutism in all of its forms. I fully understand what you're saying, and I agree with you to an extent, but what you're proposing about D&D morality is simply false. There may be settings with Tolkein-esque systems of absolute morality, but this is not the core of D&D. Yes, there are moral absolutes, but, in fact, Good is not always 'right'. Not by any means. However, setting that aside (and hopefully agreeing that some D&D worlds certainly have Good = Correct systems), Chaos and Law are, in fact, moral stances in the archetypal D&D world.
I agree, some of the best DnD worlds are subjective in what good and evil means. I much prefer those.
Just take a look at Modrons, which abide by Law. They do not merely behave lawfully, they are morally bound to law, and the service that being a Modron requires. If you take the typical axiomatic moral system of D&D, neither Chaos nor Law needs to be 'right'.
Okay, what do you mean by "morally bound"?
As I understand it, Modrons are physiologically and psychologically bound to law. They literally go crazy and dangerous if they break the law or cannot follow the law. To me, saying a Modron is "morally bound to law" is like saying a human is "morally bound to breathe oxygen". It isn't a choice, it is a physical necessity.
And, think about this in the reverse. Chaotic Creatures don't have this. Not only is there never a case of a chaotic creature being harmed or going crazy from following laws, it doesn't make sense, because they could just choose to follow the laws today and not tomorrow. They are chaotic. Setting a limit on their behavior doesn't make sense, but without limits on their behavior... they just end up having no substance. A Slaad is no more chaotic than an Elf or a Human or a Wolf. They just do what they want, with no consideration of anything else. You can use that descriptor for a lot of different people, and it doesn't carry the same connotative stories as the person who is incapable of breaking a law.