That’s fair enough, I’m literally just playing through the games now and felt compelled to comment. Kiryu’s fundamental value system is presented to us at face value right from his first interaction with Majima in the opening of the first game. He’s prepared and unconflicted about fighting Majima, just not for no reason like Majima wants. Kiryu has to have “a reason” to engage in actions typical of Yakuza, though the specific parameters of his reasoning aren’t quantified. It’s just whatever makes innate sense to him in the moment, which I’m interpreting as a rejection of conventional moral barriers to action. He’ll do whatever it takes to achieve the end he seeks, and the only difference between him and other Yakuza (or indeed Yakuza in real life) in this respect is that the ends he’s seeking are noble/just. i.e. “chaotic good”, with Majima the protagonist being his “chaotic neutral” counterpart. TBH I can’t really speak for Tak or Ichi because I haven’t finished those games, but the gist I got of what the commenter is saying is that they think although the base case for most people would be to prefer lawful-aligned governance, the outcomes secured by being chaos-aligned would justify their chaos.