Chaotic Good Theocracies

[Shades of Green]

I can easily imagine a Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral or even Chaotic Evil theocratic states, but it's quite hard to me to imagine a Chaotic Good theocracy. Is a religiously-tolerant theocracy feasable? Or will it become a religious "democracy", in which an elected ruling "conclave" of high priests of each faith (number determined by the number of followers) run the country togather? How will they ward off evil (or even lawful?) religions? Sure, Chaotic Good people aren't nescerily bleeding hearts, but running effective inquisitions to chase away dark cults seem somewhat beyond their tastes. So maybe they will adapt a "sheriff-style" (sp?) law enforcement system, with local clerics gathering posse's of able townsfolk to track down and drive away the occasional vile cultist?

 

[genshou]

I can easily imagine a Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral or even Chaotic Evil theocratic states, but it's quite hard to me to imagine a Chaotic Good theocracy. Is a religiously-tolerant theocracy feasable? Or will it become a religious "democracy", in which an elected ruling "conclave" of high priests of each faith (number determined by the number of followers) run the country togather? How will they ward off evil (or even lawful?) religions? Sure, Chaotic Good people aren't nescerily bleeding hearts, but running effective inquisitions to chase away dark cults seem somewhat beyond their tastes. So maybe they will adapt a "sheriff-style" (sp?) law enforcement system, with local clerics gathering posse's of able townsfolk to track down and drive away the occasional vile cultist?

Not sure how it works, but the expected elven government in D&D worlds is a Chaotic Good magocracy or theocracy, and their society hasn't collapsed yet... if you don't count the fall of the illithyiri that is...

 

[The_Universe]

I'd imagine a giant free-will commune, probably extremely poorly run. Really, something like American Libertarians imagine is what you'd end up with - very loose government authority, with the leaders chosen by their rank in the local faith. Few government services, but few government burdens, as well.

 

[Rostek]

I concur with theUniverse- and to add on:

The nation would be very loosly run, with the local church holding the most power in any given location- with the senior priest or rector type holding nominal authority over their lands, and conducting civil affairs and trials for criminal offenders when applicable.
The main organization of the Church would mainly collect light taxes and as for services would perhaps offer mail riders and levy church troops/templars for large scale defensive actions (though unless the nation in question has a good trade economy set up, it is unlikely that the treasury would be able to sustain a long term defensive war).
Many services would be on a 'volunteer' basis (although since most are theoretically altruistic, if individualistic, that shouldn't be too terrible a problem), including communal construction, law enforcement (ie, the posse system) and even offering shelter and care to the poor or sick.
I suspect that the defensive arrangment would revolve around border outposts manned by closely knit volunteer groups, centered perhaps around a watchtower or somesuch (perhaps rangers or barbarians with a cleric and sorceror, depending on the amount of magic in the world). Local commanders would have wide ranging authority to retreat or hold their ground based on what troops they can scrape together out of the local population (likely the very brave, very stupid and those that the church can guilt into going).
Think of the old barbarian tribes during the period around the fall of Rome like the Franks and Goths as far as some of the other stuff goes.
Hope that helps...

 

[The_Universe]

Also, well-meaning corruption would probably be common. Say the government collects voluntary donations to fund the army. The minister in charge decides he'd rather help the poor. Guess where the money goes?

 

[painandgreed]

Without looking up the 3.5 definition of CG, I'd sya you have at least two choices:

One, being a concentual society where everybody is allowed to do as they please so long as they don't affect others against their will. If somebody does, then the people group together to take care of business as they see fit under the leadership of the church for guidence. Evil never gains a foothold because people are socialized into a good society, people will general choose good over evil because it is in their own selfish self interest to do so, and because evil will make itself known and be expelled from the society before it has any significant power.

Two, it's the same as a CE society but the church is good. You have a church made of of powerful people who maintain control through a variety of means. They amy be good but that does not prevent them from arresting anybody they think they need to for the common good as directed by their god. They cast Detect Good on people. Use Zone of Truth. Scry out any evil in their region and deal with it as their god sees fit. You have no rights in a choatic society and they are not inclined to give evil any benefit of the doubt and all evil will be redeemed, expelled or executed as needed. So long as you're good and don't fight the system, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[churd]

I think the difference between a Lawful and a Chaotic theocracy is this: in the former the official religion would be codified as law where in the latter they would be encouraged, but disenters would be respected. The lawful theocracy (even LG) would probablly ban other religions and it would make violating the tenants of this religion illegal, even for acts were not othewise immoral. The chaotic good theocracy would strive to enlighten its citizens and bring them into their religion and values system voluntarily, but would respect each individual's choice - ideed, from a chaotic good point of view a worshiper who has not made a rational, free-willed decision to join the faith is worse than no worshiper at all.

Two, it's the same as a CE society but the church is good. You have a church made of of powerful people who maintain control through a variety of means. They amy be good but that does not prevent them from arresting anybody they think they need to for the common good as directed by their god. They cast Detect Good on people. Use Zone of Truth. Scry out any evil in their region and deal with it as their god sees fit. You have no rights in a choatic society and they are not inclined to give evil any benefit of the doubt and all evil will be redeemed, expelled or executed as needed. So long as you're good and don't fight the system, you have nothing to worry about.

Actually, I think this is the textbook example of a Lawful Good society - the rights of the individual are subserviant to the "common good." The indiscriminant use of scrying is analagous to modern searches and seizures, wiretaps, etc. While a lawful society would accept the individual's loss of their privacy for the safety of the group, a chaotic society would protect the individual's right, even a the expense of letting dangerous criminals escape detection.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would expect the theocrats to be the sole decision makers, working off of divine inspiration (real or faked). Laws wouldn't exist beyond general precepts interpreted from holy writ. (It's easy to know when you've broken one of the Ten Commandments, but what are the penalties? And what about every other crime in the world?)

I would expect that the theocrats, or their appointed ecclesiastical judges, would be called on to make rulings over the godly way to do things more or less constantly. As a result, I'd expect society to be structured around them more than they would be in a lawful theocracy, where codified laws would be enough to let people know what was expected of them.

And while it might be a chaotic good theocracy, I can imagine a lot of people being frustrated with never knowing what to expect from the theocrats. Certainly justice from two different clerics would be very different, and in some cases, an individual cleric would behave very differently at different times.

This is not conducive to a strong economy, an effective coordinated defense or, well, anything else. Once such a nation grew too large, I'd expect a revolution or a coup from disgruntled parties, who would only multiple as the theocracy grew.

 

[Rostek]

And while it might be a chaotic good theocracy, I can imagine a lot of people being frustrated with never knowing what to expect from the theocrats. Certainly justice from two different clerics would be very different, and in some cases, an individual cleric would behave very differently at different times.

This is not conducive to a strong economy, an effective coordinated defense or, well, anything else. Once such a nation grew too large, I'd expect a revolution or a coup from disgruntled parties, who would only multiple as the theocracy grew.

Indeed- I believe it would make for a very interesting location in a campaign- where laws and punishments change from town to town with very little similarity given the reletive sameness of the inhabitants (ie, the only consistant laws are the "Ten Commandments" equvilant).
Perhaps the only thing keeping this nation together is the God in question's actual orders "You must stay together" or somesuch.
Even chaotic types who are pious enough wouldn't refuse their god, knowing that there is some grander plan behind things (of course, they would stretch those orders to their farthest limits, but not break them).
Still, a "loose confederation" is more descriptive a term for this type of arrangement.

 

[Meloncov]

This is one time that the no religion rule is very annoying; being able to provide real world analogies would be helpful. In my opinion, a Chaotic Good faith of any kind includes plenty of room for variation in personal beliefs. This is what defines CG religions from say LG or NE religions. Therefore, a CG theocracy would be devoted to maintaining freedom of religion. The leadership would preferably be made up of people who had thought much about their faith but reached no defenative conclusion.