Trouble with contemporary stories about law/order versus chaos: even when writers seek nuance by not positioning law as intrinsic good, they still accept the Christian definition of chaos. It's a bad faith distortion meant to paint law as the only reasonable option.
Chaos, in both its original Greek sense and actuality, doesn't mean "rejection/destruction of order", it refers to the full range of possibilities and potential. Chaos is only "against" the Christian order because that order seeks to choke out all alternatives, to deny possibility and change.
While I'm on the subject, rejection of chaos is inherently transphobic, as it necessarily entails rejecting the possibility, or at least the worth, of becoming something other than what one presently appears to be.
And this is the core: "order", to define itself, must reject chaos. As part of this rejection, order's inventers always try to portray a symmetrical relationship, a duality--but that relationship doesn't exist. Chaos isn't innately opposed to order. It can't be, because order is a possibility, a potential outcome, which means it is an expression of chaos. Namely, order is a form of chaos that rejects all other forms of chaos.
This is why I call order "a very narrow chaos"--at the root, that's all it is. What we call "order" is the chaos of possibilities solid enough to endure for a while.
But if you just come out and say "I want these possibilities to persist because I like them and they work for me", well--it's pretty hard to use that as a foundation for a superiority complex, nor as a justification to trample the possibilities others like. "Order" is a construct invented to ennoble oppression, to paint the erasure of others' desires and potential as important work that upholds the cosmos.
A story accurately depicting the relationship between order and chaos would start with a community of people happily going about their lives, minding their own business, doing what works for them without trying to control anyone else, only for a bunch of armed raving fanatics to stampede in screaming, "How dare you degenerate vermin violate the natural order?! Justice will be swift!" and murder everyone who refuses to do as these invaders command.
Ordermongers need you to believe that "chaos" means "angry psychopaths barging into your life and destroying everything" because otherwise you'd very quickly realize that's what they do. The narrative of order has, from its inception, been a propaganda tool of empire and of fascist regimes.
And your reflex, because this is what most of you have been taught to assume, will be to say, "but total chaos is completely random, everything changes so fast--"
But see, now you're echoing that Christian caricature again. That's. Not. What. Chaos. IS.
Well, it can be--but it doesn't have to! True chaos is the continuous emergence and fostering of potential. Persistence is just as real and solid a form of potential as randomness is. Want to see a perfect chaos? Look at the room you're sitting in as you read this. Perfectly-manifest possibilities.
These misunderstandings are the entire point of the Christian caricature. The whole point is to make you assume that chaos means "scary bad thing that will destroy my reality and kill me," so that even if you don't like law and order, you'll see favoring chaos as equally unappealing.
The obvious example here are all the "morally grey" depictions of the conflict between God and the Devil, where, reliably, both are portrayed as equally asinine... which, in fairness, most Christian depictions make them out to be!
But, see, they're both a very narrow chaos--both "orderly." God does indeed embody Order, in the sense that Order is an invention, a made-up thing central to the Christian religion as a justification for forcing itself upon other people, but it's a fallacy to assume the Devil thus represents Chaos just because he stands against God. In most stories about their conflict, the Devil doesn't hate Order, he just hates God's order. He wants God deposed so he can make everything follow his plans instead, so he can narrow Chaos to express only the things that he likes.
So in the modern "morally grey" version, the "good" option usually ends up being rejecting both of them, which I agree with, so as to pursue one's own possibilities... which, if you've read this far, you already know I'm going to tell you IS CHOOSING YOUR OWN CHAOS.
Buuuuut framing it that way might lead to serious questions about why, if that's what chaos can be, we're so heavily discouraged from pursuing it in our own lives, and that would make it very hard to package milquetoast centrism as "morally grey" instead of just submissive and amiably defeatist.