I know that elves are typically chaotic, so all i can ever really think of for them is some kind of anarchic society. What kind of governments can apply to a population that's predominantly chaotic?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Democracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Democracy.
I thought about that, but a pure democracy would be ineffective for such a large number of people (the elves have a decent sized population in my campaign). Also, a republic didn't seem to work either because it means electing people to make decisions for you on your behalf, something chaos wouldn't agree with.
I know that elves are typically chaotic, so all i can ever really think of for them is some kind of anarchic society. What kind of governments can apply to a population that's predominantly chaotic?
Federalism
Technocracy (Government by experts)Democracy
Perhaps more interestingly, a gerontocracy -- rule by the aged, in line with tradition. Elves do gerontocracy well, for obvious reasons.
Also, a republic didn't seem to work either because it means electing people to make decisions for you on your behalf, something chaos wouldn't agree with.
I disagree. (For several reasons, not least of which is that a "republic" simply means a government without a king. The term you're looking for is "representative democracy.") More importantly, though, there's nothing inherently anti-chaotic about the idea of letting someone that I agree with and whose judgment I trust doing the homework for me and making decisions that I can't be bothered to make. Especially in a long-lived race like the elves, a person who does a good job making decisions on behalf of a group is likely to be around for a very long time and be able to continue to make those decisions.
In particular, a parliamentary democracy (as opposed to the US version) would be something I could very easily see associated with elves. Any relatively small group of elves linked by a common belief would be able to get a few people into "parliament" (like the various minor parties all over Europe).
(For several reasons, not least of which is that a "republic" simply means a government without a king. The term you're looking for is "representative democracy.")
Er, the English language. Before that, the Latin language (e.g., the Roman Republic). Before that, the Greek language (e.g. Plato's Republic). Also the use of "republic" in most of the British Commonwealth; for example, the purpose of the Australian "republican" movement is to eliminate the monarch. It (Australia) is already a representative (parliamentary) democracy, but the technical head of state is Liz Windsor.
Lots of other examples throughout history; for example, most of the various Italian oligarchies were republics despite not having any "democratic" process for electing the various members of the ruling councils. Most of the various Netherland "republics" were run as plutocracies, not as democracies. And, of course, the Commonwealth of England (aka Cromwell's Protectorate) was an experiment in a "republic" that was for all intents and purposes a military dictatorship.
Also, a republic didn't seem to work either because it means electing people to make decisions for you on your behalf, something chaos wouldn't agree with.I disagree. (For several reasons, not least of which is that a "republic" simply means a government without a king. The term you're looking for is "representative democracy.") More importantly, though, there's nothing inherently anti-chaotic about the idea of letting someone that I agree with and whose judgment I trust doing the homework for me and making decisions that I can't be bothered to make. Especially in a long-lived race like the elves, a person who does a good job making decisions on behalf of a group is likely to be around for a very long time and be able to continue to make those decisions.
In particular, a parliamentary democracy (as opposed to the US version) would be something I could very easily see associated with elves. Any relatively small group of elves linked by a common belief would be able to get a few people into "parliament" (like the various minor parties all over Europe).
Actually, no. A republic is defined as a government which has elected members who represent the people they vote for.
Also, yes, it is inherently anti-chaotic. You're letting someone else make all of your decisions for you, and implement policy that affects everyone in your country regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Someone who's chaotic would want to make decisions on their own without interference and especially wouldn't want to be held down by laws that are only in existence because the majority ruled it in.
I do agree with your idea about a gerontocracy. That does seem like something that elves would be in favor for, since they value wisdom and intellect (making those with more experience the most respected and thus most trusted to make decisions). Any form of government that isn't anarchy is going to be inherently lawful to a degree, but this at least lines up with elven beliefs.
Er, the English language.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
The definition you give is not found anywhere within the entry. I do know of some people, in an effort to establish the U.S. as being special, who advocated the U.S. as a representative democracy... but that was an American jingoistic effort. One which, IIRC, failed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, no. A republic is defined as a government which has elected members who represent the people they vote for.
See above for historical examples galore.
You're letting someone else make all of your decisions for you, and implement policy that affects everyone in your country regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
If you define "anti-chaotic" so strongly that no one can make any policy that you yourself don't agree with, then all you're left with is anarchy. No one sensible would buy such a definition precisely because people generally accept that some limits on freedom (you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater) and some degree of compromise are necessary in order to get the benefits of civilization.
Someone who's chaotic would want to make decisions on their own without interference and especially wouldn't want to be held down by laws that are only in existence because the majority ruled it in.
Which excludes even direct democracy as a possibility.
I do agree with your idea about a gerontocracy. That does seem like something that elves would be in favor for, since they value wisdom and intellect (making those with more experience the most respected and thus most trusted to make decisions).
You're contradicting yourself. If you accept that "those who are respected" are trusted to make decisions, then you're accepting the idea of representative government. The key difference is that in a representative democracy, there's a decision-making process as to who the representatives are to be; in a gerontocracy, it's an arbitrary procedure.
Any form of government that isn't anarchy is going to be inherently lawful to a degree,
Exactly. Once you accept the idea of "laws," you're empowering someone else to make decisions on your behalf, no matter how they're made. Given that, representative democracy is certainly a viable method of choosing those people. Especially if you value wisdom and intelligence, it makes sense to select the wisest and most intelligent and not the oldest (the oldest person in the elf village may be the retired fighter who dumped Wis and Con, who no one would actually trust with a burned-out smokestick).
In practical terms, gerontocracy only works when there's some sort of meritocratic selection procedure, or else where there's a way of bypassing the senile idiot who's actually the "elder" and reinterpreting his/her ravings to something sensible. Both have historical precedent -- for example, the Catholic Church is largely a gerontocracy, but the people eligible to rule have been selected as Cardinals based on competence and then kept there for life, not simply on "the oldest priest in Italy." There's also a long tradition of king's advisors (think Tolkien's Wormtongue) to handle the day-to-day matters in the name of the gerontocrats.
Er, the English language.From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
The definition you give is not found anywhere within the entry.
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch
Aside from being the first and primary definition, you mean?
Aside from being the first and primary definition, you mean?Er, the English language.From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
The definition you give is not found anywhere within the entry.
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch
Only if you make it a point to ignore the ending of the definition, which you are doing. I notice you had to cut off everything from the primary definition after "monarch."
Also, your historical examples are... interesting. Rome had, before it became an Empire, an elected Senate. In fact, their Senate is the model on which the modern American Senate is based. The problem is that most of your examples actually rely on ignoring the issue of who is allowed to vote. And at least a few cases where the word was misused.
Only if you make it a point to ignore the ending of the definition, which you are doing.Aside from being the first and primary definition, you mean?Er, the English language.From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
The definition you give is not found anywhere within the entry.
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch
Well, here's the complete definition a.
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
Nothing about elections or voting in the primary definition of "republic." Just the term "president," which specifically does not imply a public vote; it's just a job title.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confederacy.
Similar to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the Union of Lublin, complete with a parliament of nobles (and possibly the liberum veto), local assemblies, and elected monarchs (with limited powers).
Only if you make it a point to ignore the ending of the definition, which you are doing.Aside from being the first and primary definition, you mean?Er, the English language.From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
The definition you give is not found anywhere within the entry.
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarchWell, here's the complete definition a.
Nothing about elections or voting in the primary definition of "republic." Just the term "president," which specifically does not imply a public vote; it's just a job title.
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
Here's the definition of "president" that applies:
5
a : an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government
b : an elected official having the position of chief of state but usually only minimal political powers in a republic having a parliamentary government
Same dictionary.
Here's the definition of "president" that applies:
5
You had to go down five definitions before you found something that supported your argument?
I'm sorry, we're done here. A "republic" is a government without a monarch, by the primary definition from your own source. A source which specifically notes that a "president" is not necessary to be a republic.
Here's the definition of "president" that applies:
5You had to go down five definitions before you found something that supported your argument?
I'm sorry, we're done here. A "republic" is a government without a monarch, by the primary definition from your own source. A source which specifically notes that a "president" is not necessary to be a republic.
I went down to the only definition that deals with an entire government. You can even check it out yourself and note the first 4 have nothing to do with the person at the top of the entire government. Which is why I noted it is the same dictionary. Nice try on attempting to make it look like I was being dishonest, though.
But you're right. We are done here. You've failed to prove that a republic is different from a representative democracy, failed to disprove evidence to the contrary, and have presented evidence that disagrees with your stance (the Roman Republic).
Now, I think this derail is done.
Edit: I really need to watch how I word things. Some come across as far too harsh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright boys, back to your corners. Now I want a good clean fight out there next round, y'hear? *ding ding*
Alright boys, back to your corners. Now I want a good clean fight out there next round, y'hear? *ding ding*
You want a fair battle of the wits between me and someone smarter than me? I guess I shouldn't have taken all of those performance-enhancing drugs, then.
Everyone is failing to see the point that chaos is inherently anti-lawful. Some one who's chaotic plays by their own rules and does only what benefits them, nothing else. The reason why only anarchy and maybe a couple other systems of government can work for them is because they aren't willing to let others make the rules for them and probably hate compromise. They do what's right for them, and let everyone else on their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Libertarian? :P
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that chaotic has to imply that the state is without order. A benign but generally laissez faire monarchy could fit the bill well, and has the benefit of meshing well with the idea of there being nobility among the elves - something common in fiction.
But I also really like Orfamay's suggestion of gerontocracy.
At the end of the day, I think that a "chaotic" state could be shown as one where, whatever the system of government, it rules through suggestions and good advice rather than through edict and tradition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is failing to see the point that chaos is inherently anti-lawful. Some one who's chaotic plays by their own rules and does only what benefits them, nothing else. The reason why only anarchy and maybe a couple other systems of government can work for them is because they aren't willing to let others make the rules for them and probably hate compromise. They do what's right for them, and let everyone else on their own.
Where does it say that chaos is anti-lawful? It is the opposite of law, but being the opposite doesn't imply that it has to work actively against.
Also, why would chaos have to oppose compromise? That seems more lawful, in my book.
Chaos to me is doing your own thing. convincing someone to join your camp of their own volition through sound discourse fits well with chaos in my eyes. I think there would be roadblocks if you were using coercive behavior to change the will of a chaotic person, because that degrades personal freedom, but otherwise I'd think it would be OK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons why I suggested a democracy is that, depending on the type, you could have it as a very chaotic-aligned nation while still having a general government structure.
A democracy that is loosely governed, where people act according to a basic set of laws of decency but otherwise are mostly free to do their own thing, plays much differently than the highly-organized democracies of the real world.
While it does have issues with translating upwards in size, the problem is that you really can't get to the large nation level without a highly organized government coming into play. Nations just require too much organization to run effectively. The United States found that out the hard way when it had the Articles of Confederation.
If, instead, elves operate as an alliance of individual democratic city-states... then you have a chaotic government structure that also can be effective at repelling invaders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is failing to see the point that chaos is inherently anti-lawful. Some one who's chaotic plays by their own rules and does only what benefits them, nothing else.
Except playing by other people's rules can and will benefit the player. Unless you're really fond of building your own roads, delivering your own mail, and manning your own city watch towers -- not to mention being a one-person bucket brigade if your house catches fire, then you're going to need to play by the rules of the rest of the people who build the roads, deliver the male, man the watch towers, and put out fires.
The reason why only anarchy and maybe a couple other systems of government can work for them is because they aren't willing to let others make the rules for them and probably hate compromise.
Elves aren't generally considered stupid. What you just described is stupid, not chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that chaotic has to imply that the state is without order. A benign but generally laissez faire monarchy could fit the bill well, and has the benefit of meshing well with the idea of there being nobility among the elves - something common in fiction.
Yeah. A chaotic state is one that respects freedom and individuality, but that doesn't mean it's dysfunctional.
For example, a chaotic government would probably not have a professional standing army, but it would be likely to have a very large militia, where everyone was expected to serve in times of national emergency. A chaotic good government would have a light hand and a lot of respect for traditional rights, but would still have no problem with imprisoning or executing obvious criminals (e.g. thieves, murderers, &c.)
The old "dictator" of the Roman Republic is an interesting example. In general, the Roman Republic was quite "chaotic" (esp. in comparison with the later Empire); for example, government was highly decentralized, all major offices were duplicated (e.g., two consuls and censors; six praetors; eight quaestors; four aediles; ten tribunes and decemviri) to make sure that there was a certain amount of consensus among the office-holders before any actions were taken. (Further, note that those are all even numbers. The number of office-holders was designed for gridlock.)
The notable exception was the "dictator," who was appointed singly and given absolute authority to carry out a single task (such as fighting against a specific enemy), but only for as long as that task lasted, typically less than a year.
That strikes me as a reasonable model for an elven government. Limited powers that everyone considers reasonable under normal circumstances, with various traditions about S*** Just Got Real and How To Handle It. Especially with elves, there's a good chance that there's someone around who remembers how we handled the S*** Just Got Real last time, six hundred years ago, and will do the same thing this time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would either go council of leaders or monarchy/autocracy.
Well, elven monarchs are traditional, from Oberon and Titania down to Elrond and Galadriel.
More important than the form of government, though, is the "feel" of the government. What makes Elrond a chaotic "king" is the type of orders he gives, or for the most part, refrains from giving. There's a great exchange in LotR:
After the Council of Elrond, where everyone sat and discussed how best to handle the threat posed by the BBEG, Elrond appointed a group of people to help carry the Death Star Plans to Endor. (He had no trouble doing this; there were more volunteers for the job than positions, because everyone understood how important this was. The hard part was deciding who not to send.)
Then came the following:
"The Ring-bearer is setting out on the Quest of Mount Doom. On him alone is any charge laid. [...] The others go with him as free companions, to help him on his way. You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as chance allows. [...] No oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will. For you do yet know the strength of your hearts, and you cannot foresee what each may meet upon the road."
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens," said Gimli.
"Maybe," said Elrond. "But let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall."
"Yet sword word may strengthen quaking heart," said Gimli.
"Or break it," said Elrond. "Look not too far ahead!"
If you need a good model for a chaotic ruler, I think that fits. Elrond knows what needs to be done, he knows that the people involved also know what needs to be done, and he tells them to go do it as best they can, using their own judgment. Gimli, the stereotypical lawful type, insists that they need more rules to hold them to their task, and Elrond disagrees.
Somehow I can't see the dwarves of the Lonely Mountain setting off on such an ill-defined quest. In fact, they didn't, as if you remember the massive signed contract covering every contingency that Bilbo was given for his trip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A feudal system. Personal relationships established by sworn (individual) oaths. Relationships where obligations run both ways. From the lowest free elf to the local gentry to the nobility to the king. A lot of the relationships would be traditional by family. You get tradition, individual choice and immediate (personal) relationships between people. My 2 cp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law are not necessarily lawful. It is quite possible for them to be chaotic. It is so sad that people equate lawful with "obeys laws" and then complain that the alignment system is silly. Every thinking being recognizes that you need rules in a society. Indeed, that is a large part of why you have a society at all. Now, chaotic alignment means trusting people for their character and their actions, not their position. Thus, the representation would be at a very low level. You choose who you would trust to speak for you in the governing body, and someone you don't know personally would never be relevant for the post. Such a leader could possibly serve some high king or the like, but that would have to be someone supremely qualified, or the position would have few direct powers and be largely symbolic. Even the governing body would have little direct power, handing as much power as possible to the individuals themselves. The laws would be loose, open to interpretation, and would clamp down harshly on things like oathbreaking and forcing someone wrongfully to certain acts. The smaller units of leadership would likely be the ones with the military power, and central authorities depending heavily on them for every act of force. Personal relationships would be paramount, through reputation, debts, bonds of oaths, marriages, and the like. Every official act is very much a case of case by case. As a consequence of all this, chaotic lands are smaller than their lawful counterparts.
I would say a number of powerful families, served by various commoner families, where the commoners are free to leave to serve another noble family, and the oldest of each noble family forms a council for major decisions. Above them, with their approval, sits a semi-mythical king or queen.
Now, chaotic alignment means trusting people for their character and their actions, not their position.
Character, actions, reputation, skills, and so forth. A bit broader perhaps than you wrote, but otherwise I agree.
Thus, the representation would be at a very low level. You choose who you would trust to speak for you in the governing body, and someone you don't know personally would never be relevant for the post.
This (the highlighted text) I disagree with. There are lots of people whom I have never met personally, but I am familiar enough with their abilities through public sources that I don't need to know them personally. For example, I'm much happier with Janet Yellen as Fed Chair than I would be with Rand Paul, and frankly, I'm not sure I know personally anyone who would be qualified for the post. Historically, a victorious general might not be known personally to many people, but enough people would be familiar with him through reputation to make him a good candidate as a leader; both Lord Kitchener in WWI and General De Gaulle after WWII were (relatively successful) examples.
And, of course, I'd also be willing to accept recommendations from people whose judgment and probity I myself trust, essentially allowing second-hand trust. I don't personally know any good neurosurgeons, but I trust my GP to recommend one. I similarly don't know any good generals, but I trust my ordinary soldier friends to recommend one.
That's how the US system was originally set up. I, the ordinary citizen, vote for a Congressional representative, the highest office for which I directly vote. I also vote for my state representatives, who collectively elect Federal Senators on my behalf. I also vote for Electors, who elect a President on my behalf.
Focusing only on the last, if I want to become an elector, I need to convince enough of the local population that I have good judgment and probity and can/will accurately assess and follow the local will. Basically, I am collectively appointed to office precisely because people believe that I can recommend/select someone they're happy with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is failing to see the point that chaos is inherently anti-lawful. Some one who's chaotic plays by their own rules and does only what benefits them, nothing else.
Them and theirs, I would think. Things that benefit their families and friends. Which would work ok for a small enough group/clan/tribe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see elven government as having a figurehead ruler, like Queen Elizabeth of Britain. Yeah, she's the ruler and stuff, but really she's more of a symbol than the person managing and guiding the nation. I'm not a sociologist, poli sci major, or Brit though...so I may be off here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see elven government as having a figurehead ruler, like Queen Elizabeth of Britain.
The problem with that line of reasoning is "then, who's the real ruler, and how does s/he work?"
Queen Elizabeth is largely a ceremonial figurehead, but the British government is actually quite lawful, even in comparison with most other governments. There's an elaborate set of ministries and rulemakers, culminating in the Prime Minister, who actually runs the show.
They can't be figureheads all the way down. Someone's got to have the responsibility for building roads, delivering mail, manning the watchtowers, and putting out fires. If anything, i'd argue that a traditional ceremonial figurehead is more a sign of a lawful society ("the forms must be obeyed") than a chaotic one.
A chaotic society would be more likely to have someone say "hey, Rukhariel says he saw a bunch of orcs down by the river. We should put someone good in the watchtower for the next few days. Peredhel, you're the best archer here. How about you taking night shift this week?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about anarchic localism with a partial informal magocracy and some druidic fey oversight?
Yes, some local elites with almost no power beyond consent (if you tell an elf what to do, they had better agree with the command). No real bureaucracy (apart from perhaps a few vestiges tied to the magocracy) and government based on respect and trusting your enlightened people to be enlightened. For me, elven royalty never really made much sense. Feudalism doesn't feel very elven to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[...]For me, elven royalty never really made much sense. Feudalism doesn't feel very elven to me.
I think that if your king and queen are effectively immortal (à la Oberon and Titania, or Galadriel) and full of supernatural powers, they make for impressive figures - sufficiently impressive to rule over their somewhat chaotic fellow elves.
Anyway, tolkienish elves never seemed chaotic to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feudalism doesn't feel very elven to me.
That's because you associate it with Humans. *looks around* *whispers* They copied! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[...]For me, elven royalty never really made much sense. Feudalism doesn't feel very elven to me.I think that if your king and queen are effectively immortal (à la Oberon and Titania, or Galadriel) and full of supernatural powers, they make for impressive figures - sufficiently impressive to rule over their somewhat chaotic fellow elves.
Anyway, tolkienish elves never seemed chaotic to me.
And their subjects are also almost immortal, and they have widespread training in wizard magic with many into druidic powers. *shrugs*
Try to imagine the problems of ruling such a people and creating any sort of tyranny of "my family is in control bud" over them. You think an informed citizenry caused problems for the old regime, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though originally talking about elven physical stature, this may apply here:
From the Letters section of Dragon Magazine #163 (Nov 1990)
Letter writer: "Dear Dragon: My brother says elves cannot be muscular. I say they can. What do you think? Do you think elves are powerful?"
Editor's answer: "Elves are anemic and weak. They are powerful only in their imaginations. No offense, of course."
But as a serious contribution to the thread;
I would argue that a system of government is not inherently tied to an alignment. It's the people, and their alignments, using that system that defines a national or cultural alignment (if you want national/cultural alignments in your game).
Some lawful individuals in a pure and total anarchy-state would each be trying to establish rules, laws, and the like with the lawful good more often than not banding together and the lawful evil doing everything to make sure they're at the top.
In a highly regulated and layer-upon-layer structured bureaucracy where there is a law and a corresponding department for everything, if it is run by chaotic-aligned individuals then the law will often be bent or even ignored in favor of personal freedoms where the chaotic good will do so to alleviate the suffering of others and the chaotic evil will do so to further their own gain.
Additionally, a system of government could have been inherited such that it was created by one alignment-type of people and is now run by a different alignment-type.
Governments are simply tools to be used by people. Those that are good use their hammers to build their house. Those that are evil use their hammers to bash the heads of their slaves for not building their house fast enough.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though originally talking about elven physical stature, this may apply here:
From the Letters section of Dragon Magazine #163 (Nov 1990)
Letter writer: "Dear Dragon: My brother says elves cannot be muscular. I say they can. What do you think? Do you think elves are powerful?"
Editor's answer: "Elves are anemic and weak. They are powerful only in their imaginations. No offense, of course."
But as a serious contribution to the thread;
I would argue that a system of government is not inherently tied to an alignment. It's the people, and their alignments, using that system that defines a national or cultural alignment (if you want national/cultural alignments in your game).
Some lawful individuals in a pure and total anarchy-state would each be trying to establish rules, laws, and the like with the lawful good more often than not banding together and the lawful evil doing everything to make sure they're at the top.
In a highly regulated and layer-upon-layer structured bureaucracy where there is a law and a corresponding department for everything, if it is run by chaotic-aligned individuals then the law will often be bent or even ignored in favor of personal freedoms where the chaotic good will do so to alleviate the suffering of others and the chaotic evil will do so to further their own gain.
Additionally, a system of government could have been inherited such that it was created by one alignment-type of people and is now run by a different alignment-type.
Governments are simply tools to be used by people. Those that are good use their hammers to build their house. Those that are evil use their hammers to bash the heads of their slaves for not building their house fast enough.
While I agree with you, I just don't think it would be likely for a largely chaotic people to come up with a highly regulated system of government. Maybe if one was foisted upon them, or was a legacy system (which opens up all sorts of interesting back-story and history). Maybe the elves were once enslaved to a lawful society, and just never changed government. Maybe far in the past they were lawful, but have changed as their race aged.
But I would love to see a bunch of Elven bureaucrats running a dwarven government. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I just don't think it would be likely for a largely chaotic people to come up with a highly regulated system of government.
Let me playfully try to change your mind :)
So with the foundation that Chaotic alignment means "Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them." (Pathfinder PRD, "Law Versus Chaos" section)
All that's needed for a system of government to become highly regulated is time. Sure, some governments could start out that way but most don't.
Take Hammurabi's government/laws. The creation of those laws stand in stark contrast to laws-created-in-anticipation-of-an-issue or, like the U.S. Constitution's first 10 amendments which are concerned with rights rather than prohibitions. The majority of Hammurabi's laws were created as needed. They're the results of complaints coming before the courts and the judge making a ruling that then becomes the law.
Hammurabi ruled for about 42 years and his law code has 282 laws which was established about 20 years after his reign.
So take a Pathfinder elf, chaotic in alignment, that comes to rule his or her kingdom by the time they're middle aged and dies of natural causes at the average age of 550 (350 + 4d%). That gives the elf ruler over 18 times as many years to oversee the complaints, concerns, and crimes of his/her people.
The elf may start out arbitrarily making judgments on cases but after a while the people may start complaining if people get punished differently for the same crime so to end the headache the elf appoints a scribe to record all the crimes and their punishments as the elf makes them. The elf may decide to change the punishments for his previous rulings, but the rulings still exist.
At the end of the elf's reign, there could be over 5000 laws covering everything from how to handle adultery, who gets the spoils of war and how much, what happens if one person's cow eats their neighbor's garden, and so on (not to mention the added need for rulings on the use of magic, how to handle monster attacks, and so on). Even if you decide that elves in a society are 1/10th as likely to need a ruler to make a judgement on a complaint or crime, that's still 500 laws.
The elf is still ruling chaotically, hasn't established bureaucracies, doesn't have to tax the people, but over time it, the government, becomes highly regulated.
And, at least in looking at human governments, that's largely how things are done. Problems emerge among the people (especially problems about one party encroaching on the personal freedoms of another party) that the people can't (peacefully) resolve without the government playing moderator. The government makes a decision and that decision becomes precedent for future similar issues.
You can replace "individual ruler" with "council of elders" or "merchant guilds" or "elected official(s)" or "autonomous collective" etc., but the more complex a society becomes (chaotic or not), the more it, by necessity, establishes consequences for actions/events.
A shorter version could simply be a lawful elf becomes king/queen or establishes their own nation. As long as the ruler doesn't over-reach in clamping down on the chaotic populations' freedoms, it could still very easily become a highly-regulated society.
But of course, in a fantasy system, this doesn't have to be the case. Elves could just never (or fantastically-rarely) take issue with the actions of other elves as a default inherent attribute of the species/race; that they're just so perfectly in-tune with their chaotic nature that they'd never step on the freedoms of others (or at least of other elves). I personally don't care for this approach, but it could be the case in a given fantasy setting and then my all my arguments be invalid. :)
So take a Pathfinder elf, chaotic in alignment, that comes to rule his or her kingdom by the time they're middle aged and dies of natural causes at the average age of 550 (350 + 4d%). That gives the elf ruler over 18 times as many years to oversee the complaints, concerns, and crimes of his/her people.The elf may start out arbitrarily making judgments on cases but after a while the people may start complaining if people get punished differently for the same crime so to end the headache the elf appoints a scribe to record all the crimes and their punishments as the elf makes them. The elf may decide to change the punishments for his previous rulings, but the rulings still exist.
Actually, this is already a bit wrong (IMHO). The idea of precedent and paying attention to what happened before is unusual in legal history -- this is really only an idea that sank in England and that developed eventually into Common Law. Hammurabi's code was created largely to restrict the authority of local judges and to create a proscriptive authority to override local variation.
And, at least in looking at human governments, that's largely how things are done. Problems emerge among the people (especially problems about one party encroaching on the personal freedoms of another party) that the people can't (peacefully) resolve without the government playing moderator. The government makes a decision and that decision becomes precedent for future similar issues.
The highlighted bit is the problematic bit. Basically, no. Anywhere outside of England, or an English-influenced system, decisions do not become precedent, even today. Indeed, in most civil law jurisdiction, a typical decision is simply a statement of the decision, with a list of footnotes to the statutes applied -- the principle is that the legal reasoning need not be explained as it's implicit in the statutes. This makes it very difficult to reproduce the legal reasoning behind any specific case.
Looking specifically at the law/chaos tradition, the elves would typically pay even less attention to precedent than the French.
A chaotic system would accept that different sets of circumstances not only can lead to different decisions, but should, and so the "complaints" of the people would largely be ignored. "Yes, two different people can draw radically different punishments for radically different thefts. This is an issue?" Local variation would not only be accepted but encouraged, as long as the individual decisions themselves were reasonable -- and the authority of the king to override the local judges would also be exercised on a case-by-case basis rather than prescriptively.
That's because you associate it with Humans. *looks around* *whispers* They copied! :D
Feudalism doesn't feel very elven to me.
Feudalism != Monarchy. A king can just as easily be a tribal chieftain who rules directly, or the head of a huge Chinese bureaucracy that manages government independently of any nobility.
An elven monarchy would be quite plausible and chaotic. An elven duke who has sworn personal fealty to an elvenking, and who himself has accepted the fealty of a group of elven barons, who have themselves accepted the fealty of a large number of knights who rule individual fief/manors,.... less so. But the second is what historians describe as "feudalism."
