As a sort of forward personal preference in campaigns is for integrated worlds that make sense - which biases my attitude toward certain background elements. Hence this question for discussion.
Is there such a thing as a chaotic culture?
To my thinking all cultures are lawful - different perhaps in how they percieve "the law" but lawful. I would even go so far as to suggest that "barbarians" (Vikings, Hun's, Mongol Raiders, the Indians of the American plains) have a more rigid set of cultural rules governing personal conduct, tabboos on various issues, and dealing with others, than many societies deemed as highly structured, Feudal Europe, Ancient Greece, the Egypt of the Pharoah's.
I am not suggesting that their are not chaotic individuals in any culture - clearly there are, artists, adventurers, criminals. Even pirate ships followed certain rules, with stiff punishments, and voted for their chief. Most cities, ships, businesses couldn't function with the kind of order "lawful" implies to my mind.
Thus in games I run all civilizations/institutions/organizations are lawful (maybe covens worshipping certain dieties would not be - but thats about it)
Just because you can challenge to combat to prove a point, or the rules of society say they any thing you can take by force is yours by right, is still a "rule" that governs conduct - as opposed to random action.
Not much point having a Jarl, Thane, King, Sultan, Emir, High Priest, or what not if there are no rules.
I wonder if others have similar thughts, or if on reading this will consider changing the alignment of beings in their game?
Anyway thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.
Peace
I tend to agree with you, although I think even even "chaotic" cultures would have some rules, just not a lot of them. One might argue that nomads or raider cultures might be considered chaotic, tribal and clan cultures perhaps as well.
What a great topic for discussion!
Human history is full of Chaotic cultures, though few still exist today (I am going to start paraphrasing Daniel Quinn now – may he forgive me for the butchering of his ideas). Prior to agriculture, most humans existed in hunter-gatherer societies, where there are no laws, only customs. In these environments, no behavior was technically restricted, but there were still consequences for your actions. Leadership was common among the tribal organization, but their role was not meant to enforce laws that are static and unchangeable, but rather their goal was to actively solve problems necesasry to ensure the survival of the tribe.
Chaotic cultures use custom and free thinking to figure out what to do to preserve the integrity of the tribe. What may work for one dispute may not work for another. On the other hand, Lawful cultures use rigid structures that are designed to restrict any behavior that threatens its stability. These structures, or laws, are actively enforced throughout the culture, and the vast majority of the society’s energy is not focused on WHAT you should do, but HOW you should enforce what currently exists.
It is important to understand that Chaotic cultures restrict NO behaviors at all. You can do anything, and no one will come and take away your freedoms or stop you from doing it. However, there are still consequences, based on tribal custom. The job of the wisest, most intelligent, or strongest among any tribal culture is not to impose a series of static laws, but rather approach problems and disputes dynamically, using what has worked in the past. When any situation is brought to them, they judge the solution based on maintaining the integrity of the culture, but they DO NOT technically restrict the behavior. The solution is to allow the behavior. . . but impose additional actions that the perpretrator must follow if they want to proceed.
For example, if you steal something from someone else and want to keep it, fine . . . but it will require you to harvest the victim’s tomatoes this spring. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine as well, but you better give the item back to the victim if you want to remain a member of the tribe. This solution is not designed to punish the thief or reward/avenge the victim . . . it is designed to add respect for personal possessions throughout the culture. The ultimate goals is to maintain membersship, and let the members of the cultures rest easy knowing that their possessions will not be taken from them in the future. Actually, that’s kind of a bad example, as there really isn’t a lot of ownership in Chaotic cultures (some still did, though). However, ownership, and the enforcement of ownership, is so ingrained in the consciousness of OUR particular culture; it’s the easiest way to explain it.
Lawful cultures don’t work like this at all. We write down our laws, consider them sacred (as a given), and spend most of our energy enforcing them. When problems arise in our civilization, we respond by adding more enforcement, adding more penalties to the same law, or trying to refine the law holistically. In the previous example of the thief, a Lawful culture would catch and restrain him until a decision can be reached. The proper procedures are followed according to what the lawmakers have written into the books. Despite the thief’s financial situation, his level of acquiescence/education regarding the matter, and the possibility that he can make reparations to his victim on his own, the final results of this process are generally punitive in nature. Punishment for breaking laws fosters a level of respect and control, hopefully adding a deterent to any behavior harmful to the culture. Desipte these differences between Law and Chaos, the goal of a Lawful culture is the same as a Chaotic one: Maintiaing membership by letting the members of the culture rest easy knowing that their possessions will not be taken from them in the future.
In our world, it is very hard to conceptualize Chaotic culture, because everything we see and everything we know is based on Lawful culture. But is does . . . well, at least it did exist, once, before our culture wiped them out or assimilated them. In D&D, you can have as many chaotic cultures as you want in your world. Just remember that any individual culture you create will be tied by a common thread of custom, and its members will be motivated by the desire to remain in the tribe. Other than that, the variety is endless.
Also, don't be confused by the word "tribe." It has primitive connotations, but that's not what I mean. Chaotic cultures can still be quite advanced, and can engage in complicated bartering, sophisticated customs of religion, and have several positions of elected or hereditary pseudo-authority. For example, when it comes to "Lord of the Rings," I would consider The Shire to be a Chaotic Good culture, and Sauron to be Lawful Evil. The One Ring is a symbol of Law and Control as much as it's a symbol of Evil.
(This post became quite long - I have a ton more to say, but I'll leave it at that for now - kewl topic.)
Dude, nice answer to an interesting question.
I´ll add just one more thing, if you let me. Another thing to consider in a chaothic society is anarchy.
Remember that, althoug our ocidental society tries to rule that this is synonymous to mess, this is not. The real meanig of anarchy is that of a society without a State. There would be no government, cause the people would not need someone to represent them, as everyone would have the same importance in this true democracy. It´s hard for us to think that this would be possible, but this kind of society cannot be made in seven days, it is, for the ones that idealized it, a result of social change. It is due to a process of failures of the stabilished system, that we all can see is the real mess, and would be accomplished only by the right choices from the whole society. And the more important part and what most represent it: it cannot be forced to happen. This kind of revolution cannot be forced, this society would have to want it, no one could try do it against the participation of the citizens, otherwise would be just dictatorship.
Considering fantasy, once I made one setting were elves lived in anarchy. For me, they are the best canditates we have in classic fantasy to achieve this state of existence. That was not the kind of fantasy we see in the D&D settings, cause magic and unnatural things were much more rare or hidden, following the example of Tolkien´s third age. That made players a little bit lost when dealing with them for the first time.
And I had, just now, a funny and stupid thought...
Aliens arriving on my setting and saying: take me to your leader! And elves just staring at each other, confused...
See you!
I don't know that a chaotic culture woudl restrict NO behaviors. I understand using custom to deal with it, but it seems like some things, like murder, might have very real consequences, especially in a CG society. It is basically, a good way of lookign at it, though.
I think of Chaotic societies as being libertarian. Do whatever you want, however you want, and no one should stop you unless it interferes with somoens elses ability to do whatever they want. Then there are some standards.
Maybe a better way is an anarcho-syndicalist time structure. No centralized government, no central laws, but smaller sub units of society operate with the egalitarian cooperation of all members, and these sub units run society, essentially.
I think the lwaful description is good, though. In a lawful society, you use a legal code or order to describe your moral standards, and what is expected. And you enforce it. If a situation comes along you hadnt; forseen, make a law an enforce it.
In a lawful good society, the laws would be made with the idea of promoting good behavior, and encouraging cooperation and helping others. Lawful neutral would be like most countries in RL, where the main idea is to preserve order and adjuciate disputes. A lawful evil society might be one where the laws establish order, but in an unfair way, slanted towards certain people who can use the code to their own advantage. This is like Stalinist Russia, for example. There ARE laws, but they essentially support the power structure, which is evil.
I don't know that a chaotic culture woudl restrict NO behaviors. I understand using custom to deal with it, but it seems like some things, like murder, might have very real consequences, especially in a CG society. It is basically, a good way of lookign at it, though.
Very good point, Luke. Under my model for Chaotic societies, I would say that murder is not illegal, but anyone committing a murder will have to face the consequences dtermined by culture. In some cases, they might be exohnerated if the victim was disliked, or was wronging the culture in other ways. If the victim was innocent or well-liked in the eyes of the culture, I could see the murderer facing a good old-fashioned stoning, or at the very least, banishment. It could even result in having to hand over a few sheep, or a few bushels of grain to parents of the murdered.
I think it all depends on the circumstances. My point is that in a chaotic society, even murder is not expressly forbidden by a law. A chaotic culture will determine each murder case as culture and circumstances demand, and depending of course on whether or not the soceity is good, nuetral, or evil.
|
Briefly, in every culture, I believe law and chaos exist in an aspect of "give and take." If the culture leans in one direction too far, in definition it becomes a lawful or chaotic culture. The lawful or chaotic nature of whatever aforementioned culture is a judgment call based on the current conditions of affairs, which are inevitably in flux, and can vary from time to time.
My own government, the U. S. government, has its laws, but (generally and ideally) tries to make no law restricting the freedom of speech. This is a tip of the hat to chaos, or freedom. Order seems to be the (general) state of affairs. Of course there have been numerous times and places in this country's history where this order has broken down.
Take feudal Japan, a society based on strictly codified rules of behavior; in times of a strong shogunate (general) civil order was the rule of the day. When the shogunate was weak or nonexistent all the daimyos jockeying for position brought about a (general) state of chaos.
I guess applying this to a fantasy milieu, take the drow. They must have civil laws and codified restrictions of behavior, but apparently the force of law has little bearing on the day-to-day comportment of affairs, so this is a culture that leans towards chaos, and is always on the edge of utter collapse. This culture probably goes through multiple social upheavals each generation, followed by brief periods of tyrannical clampdowns, which are followed by further periods of loosened restrictions leading to the next social upheaval. Generally, a state of chaos exists in Erelhei Cinlu/Menzoberranzen/etc...
I think it all depends on the circumstances. My point is that in a chaotic society, even murder is not expressly forbidden by a law. A chaotic culture will determine each murder case as culture and circumstances demand, and depending of course on whether or not the soceity is good, nuetral, or evil.
I am reminded of Beowulf, when Wrothgar explains to Beowulf that Grendel must be stopped. Not because he is a murderer, but because he will not pay wergild, or 'man-price', after murdering his victims. Wergild was the price that was attached to each individual; so that if Grendel wants to murder at whim nobody has a problem with it as long as he pays the victims' families the worth of the victims' lives. In ancient Celtic(?)/Norse(?) society, wergild prevented a single death from escalating into an endless blood feud which would ultimately be destructive to society as a whole. I'm not sure how D&D would label the practice of wergild; I think it's halfway between lawful and chaotic and so would be neutral.
|
|
Weregild was an old Norse practice; it was dark ages wrongful death civil suit recompense. I'd say it was a lawful neutral sort of thing, to try and stave off bloodfeuding, which if unchecked can lead to a lot of disorder.
Interestingly enough, I read in one of Joseph Campbell's works that the judge's gavil used in modern courtrooms was symbolic of Thor's hammer, Mjolnir. The norse had quite a bit of influence on English common law which was our system's predecessor.
Weregild was an old Norse practice; it was dark ages wrongful death civil suit recompense. I'd say it was a lawful neutral sort of thing, to try and stave off bloodfeuding, which if unchecked can lead to a lot of disorder.
Interestingly enough, I read in one of Joseph Campbell's works that the judge's gavil used in modern courtrooms was symbolic of Thor's hammer, Mjolnir. The norse had quite a bit of influence on English common law which was our system's predecessor.
Wow, nice tidbit. If I ever become a judge, I'm going to have a true 20 pound gavel of Mjolnir!
"Sir, you are acting in contempt of court. Do you really want me to use my gavel?"
"Uh...pardon me, your honor!" (gulp)
Even in the most chaotic of cultures there were usually cultural/religious taboos that came about for whatever reason. ("Don't eat pork" - hot desert regions where food spoils easily. Similar examples can be found elsewhere.) I always viewed chaotic evil as a "might makes right" kind of society - whoever can hold the power for the longest can mold things to his whim. Lawful good societies I've always viewed as benevolent, peaceful ones, though it interests me to think about what could happen to either of these societies if their power structure wasn't challenged very often.
Good discussion, though, keep it up.
The way I see it lawful and chaotic are not absolutes, they are relative to each other. So a lawful culture is one where people imagine government and rules to be good for people, and a chaotic culture is one where people think rules are a necessary evil and should be kept to a minimum.
If you imagine an averge person from your nation saying "we have to have rules and stick to 'em! It's what seperates us from the beasts. Without rules I could kill you where you stand" then I would say they come from a lawful culture.
If however they are more likely to say "Laws are only there to prevent extreme situations, so there should be as few of them as possible. Any ruler who wants everyone to carry ID papers (for example) must be trying to take our freedom!" is from a chaotic culture.
Thanks to all who have chimed in so far. I add the following not to disparage anything said so far but to keep the topic going.
It is my opinion the Lawful - is rules based, whether those rules are codified into laws or are taboos/codes of conduct instilled through story telling and example. Whether the enforcement of those rules is by peer pressure, council of elders, or rulebook - enforcement is still enforcement, in the example - take my stuff harvest my tomatoes - is basically mandated barter - goods for services. But it is still rules, further it is a representation and interpretation of rules applied by an outside party, thus an example of lawful behavior.
Chaotic behavior - at least in this definition, is to my thinking very difficult to find. If there is accountability from an outside source - I say it representative of a lawful society. And I can think of no culture where this is not the case.
Weregild was an old Norse practice; it was dark ages wrongful death civil suit recompense. I'd say it was a lawful neutral sort of thing, to try and stave off bloodfeuding, which if unchecked can lead to a lot of disorder.
Interestingly enough, I read in one of Joseph Campbell's works that the judge's gavil used in modern courtrooms was symbolic of Thor's hammer, Mjolnir. The norse had quite a bit of influence on English common law which was our system's predecessor.Wow, nice tidbit. If I ever become a judge, I'm going to have a true 20 pound gavel of Mjolnir!
I could well imagine the lgeal fees assessed with having to constantly replace the Judge's bench. . . :)
Weregild is very cool. . . however, I'm going to go out on a limb and consider Weregild to be a Chaotic form of jusitce. I say this because the murderer has a choice not to hold to the tradition and simply accept the blood feud. Furthermore, the offended party can refuse it and pursue the blood feud anyway.
Plus, blood fueds can last generations. According to the Wikipedia entry on them, they usaully occured in ares without any strong central government, a politcal situation that is generally Chaotic in nature. In the D&D Cosmology, I think this practice would fit right in on the Plane of Ysgard, which is chaotic neutral, with some good tendancies (the custom does exist to prevent death, after all).
In my mind, if the practice were actually Lawful, it would be the culture's resposibility to enforce the payment, and not the family's. The organizing element would go so far as to seize the property itself (for the family), actively discourage blood feud retaliations with higher enforcement practices, and restrain the murderer to enforce physical punishment, or death, if the murderer cannot comply with payment.
Any ruler who wants everyone to carry ID papers (for example) must be trying to take our freedom!" is from a chaotic culture.
I think that's true, kahoolin. However, I think it's hard to figure out what the dominate culture is in that situation. In my opinion, the protestors in your example do belong to an subculture with a few, minor chaotic ideas, but I would say that they are not advocating for the removal of Law itself, as much as they are wishing to change/refine the nature of the laws that govern them. I think that the very fact that you debate a Law, or advocate the goveerment for teh removeal of a Law AT ALL, shows your inherent respect for the instritution, making you Lawful.
Not only that, our criminals are Lawful. For every Law that a crimial breaks or ignores, they're are 100s more that they follow. Getting your car tagged, standing in line at the grocery store, using state currency, oberying (most) traffic laws, and so on. . . all Lawful. Plus, what if they get caught committing an act against the law? Regardness of anyone's personal beliefs about what you are philosophically subject to, if you are caught doing something "illegal," you are punished according to the law, regardless of what the circumstances are.
Shows like Law and Order, CSI, Without a Trace, The West Wing. . . oh man, so many shows dedicated to Law and it's aspects. Each of them have been very sucessful portraying example after example where their "hands are tied" due to a legal technicality, how thier personal feelings have to be put aside for the sake of law, or just going over the minutae of every legal process, dramatized and rehashed, for the viewing public. Frankly, we are obseseed with Law.
As I said in my previous post, I propose that we live in a very Lawful culture, and probably find it hard to imagine otherwise. The pendulum in our society swings all the way from Pretty Lawful to Really Lawful, and I think that's about it.
Chaotic behavior - at least in this definition, is to my thinking very difficult to find. If there is accountability from an outside source - I say it representative of a lawful society. And I can think of no culture where this is not the case.
I think that ascribing "accountability from an outside source" as being definitive of "lawful" is not a very flexible or useful description: "lawful" should (and to me, does) mean "accountable to some *abstract organization* whose decisions are made with reference to codified rules", while "chaotic" is "accountable to some *set of individuals* whose decisions are made independently". Neither Lawful or Chaotic means "completely irrepsonsible behaviour is OK".
The two blend into each other along a continuum, when the individuals making up an abstract organization make decisions more independently of the rules (e.g. a judge deciding there are extenuating circumstances and reducing punishment or dismissing a case), all the way toward, in a more chaotic society, groups of individuals holding someone to account not based on their individual rational decisions, but primarily because of custom.
If the former happened a lot, it would be a less lawful society (consequences are being determined more by individual judges, and less by Laws) than one where it happened less frequently. Similarly, in a mostly chaotic society with very few *actual organizations*, if customs are so strongly ingrained that consequences typically just go the customary way (every time someone steals, whoever catches the thief chops off his hand, as a matter of *custom* - not strict law) instead of flexibly according to their own independent thoughts on the matter, then it would be not as much of a chaotic society than one with less strongly ingrained customs.
Quote Kahoolin:
The way I see it lawful and chaotic are not absolutes,
they are relative to each other.
I think this point, more than any other may be the one that tells the most. Though I argue with naught said by others, I do have to point out one thing; the objective measure of “law’ vs. “chaos” comes from the relative balance between social structures.
The dominant culture’s methodology is what determines “law”. As other cultures diverge from the dominant one’s the more “chaotic” they are judged by that dominant culture. Example: native Indians in the new American colonies, though very ordered within themselves and vs. other “tribes”, were considered “chaotic” barbarians by the standard of the new dominant European culture. Likewise, the Mongols invading eastern Europe (Poland, et al) were considered very “chaotic” by the dominant societies of the time and place.
In game terms: one needs to decide what the dominant culture is within the scope of the game (town, continent, world, etc.). By default this is usually considered to be the Human societies of various sorts (Monarchies, Theocracies, ad nauseum). Other cultures with similar cultural practices (like Dwarves?) would be considered “lawful” to the humans, and the humans would be considered “lawful” by the dwarves. Cultures diverging further from this cultural “norm” would then be progressively labeled “neutral” and then “chaotic” based on the level of departure.
If you run your world with Elves dominating, their society and cultural methodologies would define “lawful”, while Humans and Dwarves might well be labeled “chaotic” because of their divergence from the elven norm. It’s a call on the DM’s part, beginning with determining the game’s scope and the dominant culture within that scope.
To label any compliance to norms and patterns of behavior as "lawful" isn't a useful thing to do. Even a chaotic person relies on their own personal history and experiences to guide and determine their actions, thus pointing to them following some form of rational behavior.
Another way to think about it- The Romans were definitely Lawful, while the Greeks (at least at the time of the Trojan War and as depicted by Homer) are Chaotic. Achilles is the perfect example of Chaotic Neutral to me. Hector is harder to pin down- he does think to the safety and well-being of others, often above himself, but still engages in very personalized actions that exist outside of a set of "codified" rules. I'd label that as more Neutral. I'd even go so far as to label Hector as Neutral Good, within the confines of his society, which was, admitedly, a brutal one. (Granted, the text I'm referencing comes from a Literature book which abbreviated parts of the Iliad).
Also keep in mind that the cosmic embodiment of Evil and Chaos, the demons, have Lords and Princes.
A Chaotic culture could have laws... many.
The trouble is... they could be one way today and another way tomorrow.
And they would not be applied evenly... or logically... but at a whim.
They may even contradict.
Iraq under Baathist party… for a modern example…. Every time they killed someone I am sure it was for “breaking” the “law.”
To label any compliance to norms and patterns of behavior as "lawful" isn't a useful thing to do...
Exactly. The USA is an example of a culture with a strong Chaotic bent, in that individual rights are cherished. These rights are detailed in and guaranteed by a Constitution, which seems like a "lawful" idea, but when one considers what the laws set forth in that document actually promote, one sees that it is in many ways a Chaotic manifesto.
Whoah this is an old thread. I remember posting in this one aeons ago.
To label any compliance to norms and patterns of behavior as "lawful" isn't a useful thing to do...Exactly. The USA is an example of a culture with a strong Chaotic bent, in that individual rights are cherished. These rights are detailed in and guaranteed by a Constitution, which seems like a "lawful" idea, but when one considers what the laws set forth in that document actually promote, one sees that it is in many ways a Chaotic manifesto.
That's right. I would definitely say the USA is Chaotic Good as a culture. Er... judging from my vast expereince of American media and about 5 Americans I have known.
^Neutral Good
There are many chaotic leanings but just as many lawful leanings.
That's probably true, Rhavin. I'd say the USA was actually Chaotic Neutral when it was founded, and has been slowly moving in a Lawful and Good direction since. (Directions that I don't personally approve of, by the way, being more of a CN myself.)
I agree with Rhavin. Obviously, pinning down an entire real-world country, particularly one as large as the United States, to a D&D alignment is difficult. However, in it's concept, the USA does appear to be Neutral Good, in that the Constitution certainly seeks to promote general welfare and safety. There is a strong Chaotic bent in the populace of America; we cherish stories of outlaws and challengers to authority, and the thought that anyone can make it big in our land, and "freedom" is about the most important thing there can be to many people's minds here.
However, the Constitution itself, and the legal system and government, are extremely Lawful in D&D terms. But they preserve the minor to major chaotic whims of the populace. Yet there are also many people who are, rightfully or wrongfully, faithfully devoted to the laws of America as much as they are to any religion. If one is capable of "averaging" this out, it most likely comes up Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis, and overall, Good on the Good/Evil axis. Again, these are extreme generalizations, as everyone here knows.
Not only that, our criminals are Lawful. For every Law that a crimial breaks or ignores, they're are 100s more that they follow. Getting your car tagged, standing in line at the grocery store, using state currency, obeying (most) traffic laws, and so on. . . all Lawful.
I would not call adhereing to laws intrinsicly lawful. OK That sentance sounds kind of stupid admittedly but I can explain. I maintian the idea that a person can be plenty chaotic and still function under laws. He does not have any love for the system and probably thinks their is a better one, but he just does not want to be arrested.
Also, the laws become a kind of custom and way of life that can be hard for one to rid oneself of. Thus, a chaotic person can observe certain "laws" out of pure habit. Remember, they are more likely to cross and bridge than jump off it.
Remember, they are more likely to cross and bridge than jump off it.
LOL... yes...if they always broke the law... that would not be chaotic.... just "unlawful."