In D&D and other roleplaying games, there are sometimes alignment systems. The typical alignment system is along two axes: chaotic/lawful and evil/good. There are neutral options for both.
I don't think chaotic/lawful usually involves the characters proclivities towards being confused/disordered or incredibly orderly. It's more about their approach to society: favor the rules of society or an go about things in a more antiauthoritarian way.
While good and evil have been debated for a long time by many people, you probably get the basic idea: do you live for yourself at the expense of others, do you sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others, or do you find a compromise between the two? And do you enjoy causing suffering and pain, or bringing happiness and joy?
There are many different systems, races, settings and classes in roleplaying. Various characteristics of roleplaying games can favor certain alignments. Paladins are supposed to be lawful and are really supposed to be good, too. Rogues can be good or evil, but there's a fair chance many rogue types will be chaotic, since they're stereotypically part of the criminal class (bards are rogue'ish and not necessarily so, and an exception). Some character types are different. Fighters can probably run the gamut any which way. Same thing probably goes for mages. Races can also have a role. While there are many exceptions, orcs probably have a bad reputation in a classical/stereotypical setting. Elves aren't necessarily good, but "high elves" are often orderly/lawful as a race. There are many exceptions, but I feel like these are some of the tendencies. Paladins in particular may be a bit constricted, because I think in classical settings, they are one of the most prone to losing various powers if they violate their alignment.
What I am not sure of is whether there are classes that lend themselves, or are even built around provoking, conflicting alignments. To be honest, I can't think of a way for a class or race to lend itself fully to a conflict between lawful and chaotic, because I feel like if one was conflicted or switching alignments between the two, that might lend itself to a victory of the chaotic alignment in a sense anyway.
Yet to give a specific example some forumgoers may be familiar with, I think Steven Erikson's Tiste Edur may be an example of a race with pronounced proclivities both to law and chaos. As a shadow aspected race that favors uncertainty in their cultural lore, they seem particularly prone as a people to have extremes in both directions. A strong honor code, but (aside from Trull) a cold savagery in war, is one rather non-spoilery example I would give. It's true that many of Erikson's characters and races are conflicted, but if I was to go into detail I think I'd give a particularly strong case for the Edur with perhaps two notable exceptions:
Spoiler
I can't really make the case for the guy involved in the war with redmask in RG. He has the honor code and savagery thing, but otherwise he's a pretty straightforward character, it seems to me (for Bivatt's sake, this may be to a fault). Trull, honestly, might be the other exception - he is probably the most consistently conflicted Edur internally, the most self aware, but probably the most consistently good. And while his relationship to societal norms (lawful/chaos) in the edur society changes dramatically, I think he is probably the most authentic Edur in terms of abiding to a code of honor and loyalty to his family and people (I feel the edur tend to betray themselves over the course of MT, HoC, BH, RG). It's probably a complicated subject.
Are there other examples people can think of in roleplay or elsewhere where a class or role intrinsically predisposes a person towards fluctuation in their alignment?
