I would think a chaotic civilization would likely be controlled only by the most powerful individual(s) who are capable of intimidating/mesmerizing everyone else into following them. It would only last as long as said individual(s) could continue to be the most powerful/impressive representative of their culture.
Take of a gnoll tribe for example. There's probably and Alpha male that bullies the entire tribe into following his example/goals.
For a more social advanced example, look at the Drow. Power depends on who is useful to you and who you can bully.
No. No they are not.
|
Well, going by the nations in the Inner Sea area:
A CE nation (like Belkzen or a Drow city) is likely ruled by raw strength, or by trickery and deceit, but in any case by personal power, with authority only extending as far as that power, and with various tribes and/or factions fighting/competing to hold onto any positions of authority. Violence and betrayal are both common in such a place.
A CN nation is a bit more variable, but the possibilities seem to mostly fall under any area with many competing factions vying for power. It's not so much a choice in how the government is run (though the people may like it that way) as it is just what happens when you lack any sort of real unity, but also lack the wanton violence, deception, and cruelty that characterize a CE nation. Alternatively (as in Galt) there may be a central authority that is subject to frequent change, or (as in Numeria) there may be a central authority notable for it's capriciousness.
A CG nation is generally also defined by a weak entral authority (in this case often by design, as the people prefer independence), but generally much less inclined to internal conflicts of a violent or physical nature. If it has a central ruler, they will rule by consensus more than force, and as a country freedom and personal rights are likely to be extremely important.
The common thread seems to be either a weak central authority, or a complete lack of one, with Good or Evil determined in more or less the manner you'd expect.
...
And the early U.S. (particularly under the Articles of Confederation, but even thereafter) was actually a very good example of a Chaotic nation, leaving as much as possible up to either the people or the individual states, with just enough of a federal government for some approximation of order. It got more and more Lawful as the federal government's powers increased, with the Civil War probably finalizing the shift from Chaotic to Neutral (whether the country is or was Good or not is another matter, and one I'm not gonna get into).
I would not agree with that. A lawful society is one that attaches importance to formal rules based on principles. The purpose of this is to achieve predictability for those living there. The precepts of Rule of law are one way of doing this, though there may be others. As a consequence, people can worry less about overprotecting what they have. Lawful societies have clear laws, devote time to infrastructure and typically endorse ideals in how people should live. Chaotic societies go for Rule of man. The whim of the elite is right. Authority goes as far as personal reach. Infrastructure is weak. How people live is less of an issue.
|
|
I would not agree with that. A lawful society is one that attaches importance to formal rules based on principles. The purpose of this is to achieve predictability for those living there. The precepts of Rule of law are one way of doing this, though there may be others. As a consequence, people can worry less about overprotecting what they have. Lawful societies have clear laws, devote time to infrastructure and typically endorse ideals in how people should live. Chaotic societies go for Rule of man. The whim of the elite is right. Authority goes as far as personal reach. Infrastructure is weak. How people live is less of an issue.
You do realize you've in many ways just perfetly described a LE society, right? Many of those are autocratic dictatorships with a centralized authority completely held by a single individual, whose whim is law. Now, such a doictatorship could also be CE with the right (or wrong) leader, but are certainly capable of being a LE society. Razmiran in Golarion leaps immediately to mind, just for example.
I mean, if you want to run Chaotic Alignments as selfish and focused on personal power (which your set-up strongly implies) that's something you can do, but it's clearly not the intent of the alignment rules or the way they work in published settings.
I did not describe anything on the good/evil axis, but the things that define a lawful/chaotic society. People have this silly misunderstanding that the amount of laws somehow enters into it, or that laws are automatically lawful, which is patently wrong.
Lawful on the level of a society means certain things. In such a society, there are many things that lead to a predictable life: laws, certainly, how taxes are laid out, forms of punishment, resources devoted to discerning truth before trials, compensations such as social security nets, orphanages, poor houses, guild structures, and so on and so on and so on. All these things work in some way to make sure people know what they can expect. It may not be all that pretty or desirable (especially to outsiders), but people know what they can count on. As long as they do their military service, go to the state church every so often, and pay their bills, they know they won't have to fear being mugged too often, they know they will get their pensions, and whatever. Lawful societies also work on communications, roads, and public goods such as aqueducts, hospitals and so on. There is a mold you are supposed to fit into, and there is a strong pressure from the state and your neighbours to adapt to this. Now: This does not mean that anyone takes care of you. It may not even mean you can avoid getting tortured... but it means that you will see it coming.
A chaotic society is anything but predictable. It is open to change, large and small. The rulers remain in power because people feel they can trust them - personally. Powerful people gather followers to them through various methods, and the methods used determines the moral outlook. If threats and "protection" is the norm, that is a chaotic evil society. Whatever happens in the chaotic society happens because of personal relationships and decisions, which by necessity means that these societies are rather small. Coordinating large-scale road building becomes an intractable problem, and charity is (like everything else) on a case-by-case basis.
Now, the error you make, Deadmanwalking, is that you think that "the ruler's word is law" means society is lawful. Laws!=lawful. With the right ruler, one determined to act predictably, such a society could be lawful, but typically these societies are chaotic. The way to getting your way is, naturally then, to influence the monarch personally.
Most modern states would be treated as highly lawful, but the modern state is a pretty, well, modern thing and it's probably not very constructive to use them as models for a fantasy world.
I would say that a lawful society (in a fantasy game) is one where the laws/traditions/expectations of behaviour are based on something definitive which could be written down (even if it's not). So a plains nomad culture (inherently quite chaotic, and most individuals in it would *be* chaotic) might still be a lawful nation if everything is done 'as it has always been done' rather than changing at the whim of a new chief. If membership of "the council of elders" is determined by age then it's pointing you towards lawful, if it's made up of the dozen most influential people at a given time and it's only *called* the council of elders it sounds more chaotic. Anywhere where it would be hard to move between social classes is likely to be lawful, where advancement (or fall) depends more on what you do than what you are more chaotic. Big nations will almost always be lawful, the exception might be a ravening horde of barbarians which would likely be a mix of tribes each with their own traditions.
So, my short answer to the OP is that chaotic nations are likely to be smaller, have few if any fixed institutions, few deliniations between classes of people (probably just 'free person' and 'slave') and a set of laws/traditions that are 'flexible' to circumstance.
Most nations are likely to be lawful, almost by definition because one definition of nation would be 'a large group of people with a shared identity coming together to live under the same set of laws'. No nation is ever going to be absolutely lawful or absolutely chaotic, there will be binding traditions in the most individualistic of nomad cultures (e.g. guest right) and no matter how thoroughly stratified a caste system is people are still going to break and bend the rules.
|
|
I did not describe anything on the good/evil axis, but the things that define a lawful/chaotic society. People have this silly misunderstanding that the amount of laws somehow enters into it, or that laws are automatically lawful, which is patently wrong.
That's not what I'm saying at all. A society can be extremely Lawful with basically no laws (an isolated monastery ruled entirely by tradition and perhaps it's abbot, but with no formal laws at all) and a Chaotic society can have more laws than you can shake a stick at (the aforementioned Drow city, most of which have extensive and byzantine legal codes, which are worked around or manipulated extensively by pretty much everyone).
What I'm saying is key is something very simple: Centralization and consistency of authority. If, when asked "Who runs this place?" you have a clear, unamibiguous answer that applies at anything above a local level (whether that be an individual monarch, or a senate, or a buereaucratic institution) you're probably living somewhere more Lawful.
If, on the other hand, you list your local clan-chief or mayor, or yourself, your nation as a whole might be more Chaotic. This is also true if your response involves what week it is, or whether it's Tuesday. Or if you and your next door neighbor have different answers (because the whole thing's a bit complicated).
Lawful on the level of a society means certain things. In such a society, there are many things that lead to a predictable life: laws, certainly, how taxes are laid out, forms of punishment, resources devoted to discerning truth before trials, compensations such as social security nets, orphanages, poor houses, guild structures, and so on and so on and so on. All these things work in some way to make sure people know what they can expect. It may not be all that pretty or desirable (especially to outsiders), but people know what they can count on. As long as they do their military service, go to the state church every so often, and pay their bills, they know they won't have to fear being mugged too often, they know they will get their pensions, and whatever. Lawful societies also work on communications, roads, and public goods such as aqueducts, hospitals and so on. There is a mold you are supposed to fit into, and there is a strong pressure from the state and your neighbours to adapt to this. Now: This does not mean that anyone takes care of you. It may not even mean you can avoid getting tortured... but it means that you will see it coming.
Not necessarily. I mean, let's look at The Empire, from Star Wars. Very much a LE society, on a number of levels (though Vader seems more NE), and yet all authority ultimately comes from the Emperor. He and his chosen agents can do anything, more or less ignoring the commonly accepted rule of law. This is common in dictatorships...and yet ruthless dictators are almost always LE.
I'm not saying the society you describe isn't Lawful. It most certainly is, I mean a centralized authority of some sort is basically the only way to acquire the kind of organization you're talking about, but it's not the only way for a society to be Lawful.
A chaotic society is anything but predictable. It is open to change, large and small. The rulers remain in power because people feel they can trust them - personally. Powerful people gather followers to them through various methods, and the methods used determines the moral outlook. If threats and "protection" is the norm, that is a chaotic evil society. Whatever happens in the chaotic society happens because of personal relationships and decisions, which by necessity means that these societies are rather small. Coordinating large-scale road building becomes an intractable problem, and charity is (like everything else)on a case-by-case basis.
Not necessarily. A cult of personality can be any Alignment, depending (mostly) on the Alignment of it's leader. A more institutional form of government can also be of any Alignment (though it's likely to be a bit more freeform and less well-defined if Chaotic), depending on how it is defined by its creators and what has happened to change it's format since then.
Or to put it another way: Whether they are governments of Laws or Men has nothing to do with their Lawfulness. A dictator can run a Lawful empire that will disintegrate on his death (or be passed down to his son), and a loose confederation of city states can have a charter that all obey religiously (and care more about than any individual) and still be Chaotic.
Now, the error you make, Deadmanwalking, is that you think that "the ruler's word is law" means society is lawful. Laws!=lawful. With the right ruler, one determined to act predictably, such a society could be lawful, but typically these societies are chaotic. The way to getting your way is, naturally then, to influence the monarch personally.
Again, not what I'm saying.
You are saying, as I understand it, that a Lawful society is 'one of laws, not of men'. Something where established rules are the guiding force, while a Chaotic society is governed by individuals of power and merit.
I disagree, and say that it's primarily the degree of effective centralization of authority that makes something Lawful or Chaotic. This has very little to do with laws or the lack thereof per se.
Now, your perspective is one way to go about distinguishing societies, and (since all this is an abstract thought-construct with no objetive reality) as valid a one as mine on some level...except that the Alignment descriptions of published nations and rulers agree with me almost universally, while disagreeing with you. Which means that for purposes of general discussion, we should probably go with the explanation that best matches observed conditions within the source material.
Once again, nobody can agree on what Law and Chaos actually mean.
|
|
I'm not saying that the US today is a Chaotic society. I'm just saying that the Bill of Rights is a Chaotic document, as it is one of the few legal documents specifying what the government can't do.
Chaotic ideologies in the real world would include libertarianism and anarchism.
As a Libertarian, I'm in complete agreement with you. Just for the record. :)
|
|
IMO, modern Japan is a very good example of a RL Lawful society. The most important thing for the average japanese person is being responsible, as in doing what you are expected to do because of your role in society. Duty is a key word and there are no excuses for not doing your duty, only extenuating circumstances. Also people avoid promising anything because any promise made publicly becomes a duty.
Note that tradition in Japan is much more important than what the law actually states and that, while respecting the letter of the law is very important, the spirit of the law has near zero weight if it goes contrary to tradition.
In a Chaotic society, I believe that results (whatever the means), rather than duty and the observance of tradition, are the most important thing for a person. Also people are very concerned (nigh paranoid in fact) about anything that might threaten their freedom. Quite frankly, in this light, the United States do seem more Chaotic than Lawful (at least when viewed with a foreigner's eyes).
A chaotic "nation" is really just a geographic region inhabited by nomads... the nation-state is a pretty-inherently lawful structure.
What alignment is liberty? :P
@ UR:
Last time I checked, concepts were pretty much alignment-free... :P
But I'd go with Chaotic/Something (depending on what one DOES with one's Liberty).
I'm not saying that the US today is a Chaotic society. I'm just saying that the Bill of Rights is a Chaotic document, as it is one of the few legal documents specifying what the government can't do.
Chaotic ideologies in the real world would include libertarianism and anarchism.
I'd disagree. That the Bill of Rights is so highly regarded and given such enormous significance by the founders shows a very lawful society, at this upper level at least. Defining the limits of it's own power would be the definition of a lawful government.
Our government has been in a continuous power grab ever since. That's lawful as well as the government legislates to it's own advantage.
I think the very idea of a chaotic government is an oxymoron. Chaotic individuals may participate in the governance of the land. But it is not possible for a government to govern in a chaotic fashion and it be even marginally relevant.
Nirmathas and Galt are great examples, as neither actually has a government. They both posses bodies that serve in place of a government but those bodies do not truly govern.