D&D General How do YOU flesh out a chaotic society?

[Charlaquin]

At the societal level, I essentially think of Lawful as centralized power structures and Chaotic as decentralized power structures. Chaotic societies generally function democratically, while Lawful ones have some form of hierarchy, with hybrid models like republics being Neutral.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So the Diggers sound like they trend more closely to Chaotic Good, with the Ranters being perhaps more prone to Chaotic Evil.

Congratulations on finding historical groups sufficiently oddball and obscure that there is probably nobody who feels sufficient kinship with them to be offended on their behalf when you assign them alignments.

The Ranters were perhaps Chaotic Evil as viewed by their own period's values and the prism of hostile sources. I suspect they were far less "evil" than the average PC claiming to be "chaotic neutral".

 

[Shiroiken]

Chaotic doesn't mean crazy, and has been misnamed forever (lawful too). The Lawful/Chaotic axis is the divide between community and individualism. To use a real work example, on the social-political charts it would be listed as authority vs anarchy (or authoritarianism vs libertarianism, but that's considered loaded).

Elves, as chaotic good, encourage the individual freedom of each elf. If an elf's needs or desires is outside of the group's norm, it's not shunned (so long as it's not evil, which is the other axis). They tend to be selfish, but not to the point of evil. This does mean that organizing the community is harder, but major issues (such as defense) will still be resolved quickly.

Orcs, as chaotic evil, care far more about themselves than each other. It's assumed that an orc's needs or desires is outside of the group's norm, so that is the norm. Organizing almost requires a strong leader to overcome their innate selfishness (and often cowardice, since they'd rather run away than die with the group).

In both cases the individual is more important than the group, but the good/evil access often determines the specifics. A strong leader in a chaotic soceity would ease organization, but isn't necessary. An elf could still be cowardly and an orc could still be foolishly brave, but the good/evil axis tends to color things (good cares about good, while evil feeds upon itself).

 

[Redwizard007]

Lots of great answers here, and I appreciate everyone's input.

Chaotic doesn't mean crazy, and has been misnamed forever (lawful too). The Lawful/Chaotic axis is the divide between community and individualism. To use a real work example, on the social-political charts it would be listed as authority vs anarchy (or authoritarianism vs libertarianism, but that's considered loaded).

Elves, as chaotic good, encourage the individual freedom of each elf. If an elf's needs or desires is outside of the group's norm, it's not shunned (so long as it's not evil, which is the other axis). They tend to be selfish, but not to the point of evil. This does mean that organizing the community is harder, but major issues (such as defense) will still be resolved quickly.

Orcs, as chaotic evil, care far more about themselves than each other. It's assumed that an orc's needs or desires is outside of the group's norm, so that is the norm. Organizing almost requires a strong leader to overcome their innate selfishness (and often cowardice, since they'd rather run away than die with the group).

In both cases the individual is more important than the group, but the good/evil access often determines the specifics. A strong leader in a chaotic soceity would ease organization, but isn't necessary. An elf could still be cowardly and an orc could still be foolishly brave, but the good/evil axis tends to color things (good cares about good, while evil feeds upon itself).

Not to derail this, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on bravery based on alignment. Its certainly one take, and it seems to make sense based on the self-vs-society argument, but there have been many real world examples of rather flexible cultures that rewarded individual valor with rising status, wealth, and ultimately a seat at the feast of the gods (or other appropriate afterlife.) More specifically in D&D, orcs who wish to serve Gruumsh in the afterlife not only had to die in battle, but a successful battle. Though, I suppose those who were losing a fight could conceivably flee to find a more winnable conflict.

 

[Kurotowa]

Okay, I really don't want this to come across as a threadcrap, but my solution is ...I don't. Societies don't have alignments, people do. Originally as their aligned faction in the great cosmic struggle, these days as a very rough but rather iconic personality test. But you can't apply those to a society; partly because it's just a fundamentally different sort of thing, partly because societies are axiomatically lawful if they're organized enough to have laws.

A chaotic "society" is a region populated by independent homesteaders or warring hill clans. At most you might get a local warlord who's in charge on a "do what I say or I kill you" basis. But as soon as you start instituting laws and traditions and organized governance then you're in lawful territory.

Alignment can be useful for describing specific persons or the outlook of extraplaner entities that lack some degree of free will, but it's a very poor fit for races or societies.

 

[Sithlord]

Okay, I really don't want this to come across as a threadcrap, but my solution is ...I don't. Societies don't have alignments, people do. Originally as their aligned faction in the great cosmic struggle, these days as a very rough but rather iconic personality test. But you can't apply those to a society; partly because it's just a fundamentally different sort of thing, partly because societies are axiomatically lawful if they're organized enough to have laws.

A chaotic "society" is a region populated by independent homesteaders or warring hill clans. At most you might get a local warlord who's in charge on a "do what I say or I kill you" basis. But as soon as you start instituting laws and traditions and organized governance then you're in lawful territory.

Alignment can be useful for describing specific persons or the outlook of extraplaner entities that lack some degree of free will, but it's a very poor fit for races or societies.

Cultures and societies share common values. Although many can deviate from that.

 

[Aging Bard]

I think a lot of modern societies are built on Chaotic ideals (individual rights and freedoms, diversity, innovation and change), and those ideals shape the societies to varying extents. But even the most Chaotic nation still has plenty of Law in its makeup--a nation with no Law at all falls apart immediately.

I'm sorry, but your definition of Chaos is incoherent, and you say so in the above quote! Requiring "plenty of Law" is exactly why Chaotic societies do not exist in reality. "Individual rights and freedoms" is not Chaos, that's Law securing such rights. A Chaotic society must eschew any externally enforced Law, and then there needs to be a reason how such a society remains coherent. I gave an answer for elves, and that answer is weird, nothing that humans could implement.

 

[Kurotowa]

Cultures and societies share common values. Although many can deviate from that.

And by at least by some common definitions of the difference between Lawful and Chaotic, as soon as you cross the line from a personally developed code of ethics to a shared cultural or societal one you've gone from Chaotic to Lawful, regardless of what those ethics are.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm sorry, but your definition of Chaos is incoherent, and you say so in the above quote! Requiring "plenty of Law" is exactly why Chaotic societies do not exist in reality. "Individual rights and freedoms" is not Chaos, that's Law securing such rights. A Chaotic society must eschew any externally enforced Law, and then there needs to be a reason how such a society remains coherent. I gave an answer for elves, and that answer is weird, nothing that humans could implement.

Thanks for illustrating my point about the silliness of absolutist thinking. A law that restrains the lawmaking entity, forbidding certain types of law from being made, is an example of Chaotic ideals put into practice in workable form--very different from laws that bind citizens.

 

[Aging Bard]

Thanks for illustrating my point about the silliness of absolutist thinking. A law that restrains the lawmaking entity, forbidding certain types of law from being made, is an example of Chaotic ideals put into practice in workable form--very different from laws that bind citizens.

Again, I'm sorry, but defining Chaos as some form of warped Law just explains why actual human Chaos can't exist. Chaos societies that are interesting and strange need to be defined without any reference to Law. Which is hard given human minds!