It is regrettable that the original AD&D folks used the word Lawful -- since this loaded term begs comparison to "the law" or laws of governments. Ignore that impulse. A more useful way to leverage this model is to think of those seeking order versus those seeking disorder. Immediately, we realized the more chaotic nature of those who liked Anonymous-like activity, and the more orderly nature of those who were uncomfortable with it. Some view Anonymous like a modern day Robin Hood -- as a force for good, working outside of the system on behalf of the people. Others see Anonymous as a dangerous and disconcerting development toward the Joker (a la "The Dark Knight") -- wreaking havoc, driving toward anarchy and doing irreparable damage. How do you see them? This is not meant to be a distinction without a difference. There are tactical and strategic implications of these different types of actors.

Let's take evil for a moment. (NOTE: good and evil are often loaded terms, so please refrain from digressing into relativistic debate, at least for now). Why would it matter if an evil adversary was lawful evil versus chaotic evil? Some argue the Russian Business Network is a form of organized crime and therefore lawful evil. Others have argued the Chinese Military and Espionage campaigns are also lawful evil. In both cases, there is an organizational structure, a chain of command and an operational framework. When military and private 'cyber warriors' are seeking forensic evidence and attribution, one reason is so they can leverage the knowledge of which adversary they are engaging. Such knowledge can assist in the chess match and inform the -- narrowing options from all to likely -- and so forth. Actors within such a lawful camp are likely to act within at least semi-consistent boundaries.

Conversely, chaotic individuals or loose collectives are likely to be less structured, less organized and less bound. Depending on where they land on the continuum, lasting formal structures may be anathema to them. Strategic constraint may also be less likely. Team-ups may be more ad hoc and more like flash mobs. Depending upon the ideological constitution and maturity of chaotic actors, activities may be more erratic and be taken further than expected. Coming back for a moment to the example of the Joker, a defining characteristic was his deliberate lack of 'the plan,' making it incredibly difficult for the police, the mob or the Batman to know how to deal with him. As Michael Cain's character put so well:

Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.