I just don't see how this follows.
Can you not have a lawful(ly inclined) person (or persons) overthrow a structural hierarchy for reasons that don't have to do with the dysfunctionality of the structure? They believe in order and structure but this hierarchical structure isn't sufficient. Perhaps the structure, though coherent and functional, doesn't sufficiently serve their ends (their own "right" ascension atop a hierarchical structure which will yield MOAR justice)? Perhaps the structure, though meritocratic and functional, isn't meritocratic or functional enough?
Mutiny and coups within hierarchical structures don't exclusively occur because either (a) the hierarchical structures are dysfunctional and/or (b) those revolting are order/structure-disinclined (eg Chaotic). They can happen because of the intersection of a lot of reasons that the Alignment matrix just fundamentally fails to capture.
I disagree. Mutinies and coups happen for those reasons, or because someone wants the power and is willing to kill for it, etc, but there is no difference that means anything to a moral argument between "unjust" and "not just enough".
A lawful person is, either way, going to be more reluctant to overthrow rather than seek to fix that structure or system, and won't generally disobey the authority unless they see a good reason to do so. On the other hand, the Chaotic person is passively ready to overthrow the system, and whether or not they do is more about other factors like how many people seem to be with them, how likely they are to succeed, how much danger is involved and how risk averse they are, etc.
The chaotic person sees authority as inherently in need of challenge in order to determine it's legitimacy, and doesn't care if the authority is legitimate in general when deciding if a given rule or order needs to be followed.
The default position is different. What direction evidence or a good reason is needed is different. It's about how likely the person is to stop and ask why, and wait for an answer that makes sense and seems honest, before carrying out an order from a "neutral party" that they have no specific reason to distrust.
Ok, while I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "narratively loose manner" here, I think I read you.
What I mean is, it seems like you don't generally determine things ahead of time, and instead wait to see what will add to the scene the most. You didn't enter the scene knowing what kind of person Rose was, or even what the nature of the loan and the debtor relationship was, or who was the jerk and who was the victim. That isn't how DnD is generally played. If you play dnd that way, alignment might get in your way, I"m not sure. I'd have to try using alignment in such a game in order to know. But I do know that it isn't as useful to discuss alignment outside of it's intended useage, which is in a world where people exist outside of the perception and interaction of the player characters.
What about the above that I've posted? I take it you don't believe that the D&D Alignment matrix has conceptual blind spots for complex people with competing (often at outright tension) internal priorities and even extremely heterogenous ideals?
It seems to me that 5e (since this is the forum) does better work with its Ideals/Bonds/Flaws. Take the mutiny/coup example from above (even if its just latent within the person and hasn't, and perhaps won't ever be, acted upon).
Ideal - Structure and order is necessary for a comprehensively just and stable society.
Bond - My commander is a good soldier but an incompetent leader.
Flaw - Only I can see us through these trying times.
That Flaw is clearly hubris...but hubris doesn't mean you're wrong. They may be right.
Is that person above a latent Lawful Evil? Latent Lawful Good? What if they put the above 3 into action? Do they become Chaotic?
No, they're clearly Lawful, we can't tell good or bad from that, and mutiny doesn't change their alignment in any way. They're acting in the direct interest of establishing legitimate authority as part of a structured system of rules and hierarchies that will (hopefully) lead to greater stability. In this case, its a matter of greater stability in the face of adverse circumstance, and good men have been mutinied against for less.
Hell, some vikings once sacrificed their king/chief/whatever I don't recall to Odin because the ship was having bad luck all trip and the guy running the rig is the guy responsible for that.
It just seems to me that (beyond the other issues I've spoken of above regarding increased cognitive burden, contracted dynamism of characters because of the restrictive lens of the matrix, not being able to be surprised by an NPC) here are enormous conceptual blind spots in the matrix.
Bold, enigmatic, impulsive, ruined. Those 4 words open up enormous possibilities while simultaneously channeling my imagination in an interesting, yet constrained, direction in the way writing "LE" does not. Some of that is admittedly going to be my own mental framework. But a fair bit more of that (in my opinion) is operationalizing that very flawed matrix of D&D alignment.
I again disagree. It's mostly your own mental framework, just like how well alignment works for those of us it works for is our own mental frameworks. There is no need to think consciously about alignment, for me, pretty much ever. It's there in the back of my head, and I just use it.
So, here's the problem I have. I just am not ever going to walk through a several step scenario like you want me to in order to have this discussion. The process is excruciatingly frustrating for me, in large part due to ADHD, but also simply because dissecting a hypothetical sequence of events is just an inherently unenjoyable experience for me.
