Chaotic Good Theocracies

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The leadership would preferably be made up of people who had thought much about their faith but reached no defenative conclusion.

Lots of things are preferable, but in life, I find that the preferable occuring is uncommon at best. Maybe most of the theocrats would be enlightened and far-sighted, but in a chaotic society, there's no mechanism to ensure that they would be (and even if there were, people would just work the system as best they could). I think you'd likely end up with some enlightened CG theocrats who would be a pleasure to live under ... the problem is that if you travel to the next town, all bets are off.

 

[churd]

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.

I disagree that this would necessarily be frustrating. If the population and not just the leaders were CG then they would WANT their judges to make individualized decisions based on the particular facts of a case, not to be constrained by specified limits and rigid forumlas - i.e. Kord chose these judges for their wisdom, so we should let them apply it as they see fit, not force them to issue cookie-cutter judgments.

Judges in the US have historically had VERY broad discretion in sentencing. It has only been recently that sentincing guidelines have been created, and they were not a reaction to public outrage at inconsitancy in judgments, but the public perception that liberal judges were being too soft on crime.

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.

Again, I think a real world analogy shows that this is not necessarily the case. Communist nations such as the USSR and China clearly place "the people" and the good of the state over the rights of the individual. By contrast, the US and western nations favor individual rights and personal liberty. One of these two systems would clearly be labled more "chaotic" - and its not the one who's economy is in shambles.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Judges in the US have historically had VERY broad discretion in sentencing. It has only been recently that sentincing guidelines have been created, and they were not a reaction to public outrage at inconsitancy in judgments, but the public perception that liberal judges were being too soft on crime.

Er, that is a reaction to a chaotic judiciary (that did not reliably behave the way they wished), and the electorate (through their representatives) responded in a distinctly lawful way.

Again, I think a real world analogy shows that this is not necessarily the case. Communist nations such as the USSR and China clearly place "the people" and the good of the state over the rights of the individual. By contrast, the US and western nations favor individual rights and personal liberty. One of these two systems would clearly be labled more "chaotic" - and its not the one who's economy is in shambles.

The West pays a lot of lip service to personal liberties (and act on that lip service in varying degrees), but there's also a deeply lawful streak that a Chaotic Good theocrat would view as a fetishization of law.

Something being Constitutional or not is something that every American can form an opinion on, and that is as lawful as you can get. It's also part of popular culture: If a police officer arrested someone without reading them their Miranda Rights, everyone in earshot would know something was wrong and many, probably most of them would be upset. Again, deeply lawful.

America (and to varying degrees, the rest of the West) is a tug of war between Law and Chaos, and is neither one nor the other.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well, clerics tend to have high wisdom, and perhaps people realize that it is good to be ruled by wise people, so the clerics act as a council of advisors, whose advice most people take unless they have a really good reason not to.

 

[churd]

Er, that is a reaction to a chaotic judiciary (that did not reliably behave the way they wished), and the electorate (through their representatives) responded in a distinctly lawful way.

My point was merely that we got on as a rule of law nation quite well for over 200 years (and still do in about half the states) with a system where a judge had huge amount of leaway in imposing sentences, and neither the prosecution or defendant had much recourse to complain that the sentence was out of line with what other judges were giving out, or even with what the same judge gave out in similar cases. Most higher courts felt that the trial judge was the one who got to hear the parties speak, look them in the eyes, and judge the subtle nuances of the case better than a review board going only on the dry facts of the case. There was little sign that the public at large was "frustrated" with this system, as you implied.

When we did start to move away from this in the 90's it was driven by the "tough on crime" movement that was much more concerned with harsher sentences across the board than inconsistent (chaotic) sentences.

Even in the federal system and the states which have some form of sentencing guidelines there are huge statistical disparities within those guidelines. In urban courts where criminal infractions are common and the courts are jaded, sentences are highly skwed toward the low end. In rural courts where criminal proceedings are much less common sentences tend toward the high end. Yet no one seems "frustrated" by this except for a few academics in the law schools and the people who are sentenced in rural courts.

The West pays a lot of lip service to personal liberties (and act on that lip service in varying degrees), but there's also a deeply lawful streak that a Chaotic Good theocrat would view as a fetishization of law.

Something being Constitutional or not is something that every American can form an opinion on, and that is as lawful as you can get. It's also part of popular culture: If a police officer arrested someone without reading them their Miranda Rights, everyone in earshot would know something was wrong and many, probably most of them would be upset. Again, deeply lawful.

Chaotic only implies few laws, not no laws. To put a new twist on an old saying: chaotic good does not mean chaotic stupid. Even in a pure chaotic good society there would be some version of "thou shalt not kill" and a few other biggies.

Nor do I think a Chaotic good theocrat would see the US Constitution as a "fetishization of law." Just the opposite would be the case in my view.

First, the document that has been the basis for one of the most stable and powerful nations on the planet is what, about 20 pages typed out? That is unbeliveable! The traffic code of most small towns runs a couple of hundred pages at least. And this is exactly what a chaotic good theocrat would want for their society - a document with a few general guiding principles, not a comprehensive text ment to addess every last contingency that might arise in excruciating detail.

Second, in those few pages, look what the framers sought fit to put in: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection of an individual's home and possessions from intrusion by the state. These are all values that a chaotic good person would espouse - although a chaotic individual is generally against unnecessary laws, these are ones that I think they would agree with.

Last, American's knowledge of the Constitution is more accuratly seen, not as a love of the law, but rather a love of the rights that protect their individual liberty. How many people really know the constitutional procedures for appointing an ambassador or what the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court is? But every American knows that the government can't come in and search HIS house without a warrant. Your example of the Miranda warning is one where the rights of the individual (even a guilty criminal) are given precidence over the greater good of society as a whole (criminal goes free to comit more crimes.)

America (and to varying degrees, the rest of the West) is a tug of war between Law and Chaos, and is neither one nor the other.

I agree completely. No nation, especially one as vast and complex as the US, can be easily pigeonholed into one of nine neat boxes. However, I believe that if you look at what the different systems espoused as their core values - freedom, liberty, the prusuit of happiness v. redistribution of resources based what is best for the largest numger of people - one resonates more closley with the concept of "law" and the other more closley with "chaos." Obviously, that is an oversimplication, but this is a message board, not a poly sci thesis.

My point was that a society being "chaotic" does not nescessarily imply an environment that is detrimental to the economy or defense. In many ways the last half of the 20th century was the greatest econ experiment ever - and guess what? The system that was driven by individual greed blew the doors off the system that was designed for the greatest good for the most people (again, oversimplification, but reasonably accurate.) Adam Smith said it first, but Gordon Gecko said it best: "greed is good."

 

[Corinth]

That's not accurate. Adam Smith was a paid apologist for the British Empire, writing for the expressed purpose of propagandizing against the American System--which is not at all Free Trade (i.e. Imperialism, i.e. Globalization), and neither is it Communism (which is actually fascism in drag, as US Naval Intelligence knew in WWII)--and so he advocated a system that can only be truthfully called "evil" (by real world and D&D standards alike). The American System is something else entirely.

 

[churd]

That's not accurate. Adam Smith was a paid apologist for the British Empire, writing for the expressed purpose of propagandizing against the American System--which is not at all Free Trade (i.e. Imperialism, i.e. Globalization), and neither is it Communism (which is actually fascism in drag, as US Naval Intelligence knew in WWII)--and so he advocated a system that can only be truthfully called "evil" (by real world and D&D standards alike). The American System is something else entirely.

As I said, an oversimplification. US is of course not a "true" free market - but then again we are not a Democracy either, yet most people are pretty comfortable using that description as well. However, I am afraid I have dragged this thread away from gaming and into real world politics. (In truth I am much more sympathetic to your point of view then you might imagine from my post.)

Here is a more politically neutral revision:

During the cold war, the western nations had an economic system that might roughly be described in D&D terms as "chaotic" - there was reletivley little regulation, and one of the primary goals was the maximization of individual wealth. While it was believed that this system would ultimately be the best for everybody, it was conceded that some good people would live in poverty while the Paris Hiltons of the world wasted fortunes partying and building monuments to their own vanity.

Meanwhile the Eastern Bloc nations had an economic system the might be generally described in D&D terms as "lawful" - there was relatively heavy regulation, and one of the primary goals was distributing wealth based on the best interests of society as a whole. While it was believed that this system would ultimately be best for everybody, it was conceded that talented, hardworking individuals would have a hard time reaping a greater economic benefit than their stupid, lazy komrades.

My point is not to say any nation fits 100% into any simplistic alignment category, just to point out an example of a real economic system that might fit the label "chaotic" without being sloppy and inefficient. Perhaps a chaotic good theocracy would be a "pure" free market - then again a purely free market might produce a wealth inequality so great that that the society would not longer be considered "good." Just some things to consider.

 

[The_Universe]

My point is not to say any nation fits 100% into any simplistic alignment category, just to point out an example of a real economic system that might fit the label "chaotic" without being sloppy and inefficient. Perhaps a chaotic good theocracy would be a "pure" free market - then again a purely free market might produce a wealth inequality so great that that the society would not longer be considered "good." Just some things to consider.

Of course, this assumes that wealth, in and of itself, is good or bad. For the inequality thereof to have a moral component of any sort, that's sort of the necessary philosophical precursor. Of course, there's no reason that any society must *necessarily* judge the good or evil of the individual based on property - there's nothing wrong with being poor, as compared to one's neighbors. Now, if you're missing out on basic needs - ok - that's bad. But just because the guy down the street has so much more money than you that it's unimaginable, it doesn't mean that something non-good has happened.

The "moral" nature of inequalities in wealth are questionable at best, particularly in matters where anything less than the survival of the poorer individual is at stake.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There was little sign that the public at large was "frustrated" with this system, as you implied.

Since neither you or I is 300 years old, it would be a mistake for either of us to speak for our great-great-great-great-great grandparents.

When we did start to move away from this in the 90's it was driven by the "tough on crime" movement that was much more concerned with harsher sentences across the board than inconsistent (chaotic) sentences.

Except that there have always been harsh sentences handed down by some judges. The public wanted THOSE sentences more consistently. It absolutely is a reaction against chaos.

Even in the federal system and the states which have some form of sentencing guidelines there are huge statistical disparities within those guidelines. In urban courts where criminal infractions are common and the courts are jaded, sentences are highly skwed toward the low end. In rural courts where criminal proceedings are much less common sentences tend toward the high end. Yet no one seems "frustrated" by this except for a few academics in the law schools and the people who are sentenced in rural courts.

I submit you're ignoring regular discussions of these very issues. I think anyone still bothering to read this thread knows there's a difference in sentences for cocaine and for crack, for instance, despite very little difference between the two drugs other than who takes them. This information got out there because there is a significant number of people who are upset about it.

Chaotic only implies few laws, not no laws.

America has a ton of laws.

First, the document that has been the basis for one of the most stable and powerful nations on the planet is what, about 20 pages typed out? That is unbeliveable! The traffic code of most small towns runs a couple of hundred pages at least. And this is exactly what a chaotic good theocrat would want for their society - a document with a few general guiding principles, not a comprehensive text ment to addess every last contingency that might arise in excruciating detail.

Except, of course, we have a system built up of multiple layers. The several hundred page traffic code at the local muncipality applies to the individual just as much as the federal code does, as well as the state and often the county. There is a huge accumulation of laws each individual is subject to, with federal law trumping the diversity of state and municipal laws when there's a conflict. The system favors law over chaos, and even many of the individual states have massive amounts of law an individual is subject to -- the bar in California and New York isn't tough to pass because it's written in Pig Latin.

However, I believe that if you look at what the different systems espoused as their core values - freedom, liberty, the prusuit of happiness v. redistribution of resources based what is best for the largest numger of people - one resonates more closley with the concept of "law" and the other more closley with "chaos."

Except that the nation went to war with states that wanted more freedom to do what they wanted to on a local level, and the victors have painted that chaotic desire as being mostly the freedom to do evil, which most historians agree is a gross oversimplification.

The federalists, the Lawfuls, have won.

There are guaranteed individual rights, but they're specific carve-outs from an expectation that the government has a huge amount of power over the individual, and not just one layer of government, but many. And in this highly politicized age, many Americans will cling to a few guaranteed freedoms, but will view with suspicion people wanting to exercise different ones (this goes for all sides -- the letters ACLU and NRA evoke a strong reaction from people, depending on where they are on the political spectrum, because they choose to cling to their rights too zealously/expand their rights, which offends the deeply Lawful streak running through American political culture).

My point was that a society being "chaotic" does not nescessarily imply an environment that is detrimental to the economy or defense. In many ways the last half of the 20th century was the greatest econ experiment ever - and guess what? The system that was driven by individual greed blew the doors off the system that was designed for the greatest good for the most people (again, oversimplification, but reasonably accurate.) Adam Smith said it first, but Gordon Gecko said it best: "greed is good."

I don't see chaos in endless amounts of treaties, regulations and restrictions on businesses and in tariffs and subsidies. Commerce moves in an incredibly regimented fashion and when chaos exists, it's regulated away within a few short years, although that didn't help those affected by the dotcom bubble.

Just because the system is more successful than the Lawful Stupid system across the ocean doesn't mean it's Chaotic.

I'd say the country, on balance, is more or less Neutral, although we tell ourselves we're Good or Lawful or Chaotic. But the pendulum stays pretty close to the middle, given all of the influences on it.

 

[painandgreed]

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.

Let me start by sayign that as in all alignment discussions, it's up to the DM. Each DM will run things differently no matter what the books say about alignment. For that matter, I don't think that the simple description as provided in the books can truely describe the one ninth of the population that they cover. There are simply too many variations to say any description works for them all.

IMC, I don't think a lawful society would do anything "indisciminant". What they can and couldn't do would be defined by the law and people's rights or lack of would be codified by such. THere might not actually be laws written in the books and only a strong authority structure but a lawful societies authority structure would be working by common rules and traditions which everybody knows. It would be a conservative society that seeks to do things the same way they've been done in the past.

A CG society like I was describing would be something along the lines of this: Let's say that a group of Knights of Kord get together and go vanquish a small country ruled by evil priests. They despose the priests and set themselves up in their place as the lords. They all rule under some understandings and agreements such as the worship of Kord and mutual defence but there's no strong central government and each knight is total ruler of their lands. They may allow other religions, but I see no reason that they would need to allow any of those religions to actually gain any ruling power.