How does a chaotic society function?

[Thanee]

Yep, I think a chaotic society would only have a bare minimum of laws and no overall administration, but rather small communities with their own way of handling things. They would have leaders, which have shown that they are capable, which are respected by the folk, not ones that have been born into that position.

Bye
Thanee

 

[fusangite]

I think the problem is that the definitions of Chaos and Law are confusing and nonsensical.

Yep. The rules state that having individual rights is chaotic and having a bill of rights is lawful. Thus, the only means by which a chatoric good society can actually come into existence is inherently anti-chaotic.

But this has been covered in the various other alignment threads people have posted to. Now, I think a more interesting question for this thread to look at is: how can we modify the rules so that one can have a chaotic good society? (A chaotic evil society is just a civil war.)

My view is: make alignment like the Cold War. Your alignment isn't about your behaviour; it is about the "side" you have chosen in some kind of dirty confusing bipolar cosmic-political battle.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Fusangite:

Individual freedims and a bill of rights are NOT mutually exclusive. The rules don't state that you can't have both and not be chaotic still. The rules state examples of general ideas that are USUALLY found in SOME cases of each alignment, never saying that a Chaotic character won't have a code of honor. Instead, saying it is MORE LIKELY that a Lawful character will. All subjective stuff.

A bill of rights would fit a chaotic society perfectly. But the thing is, it would likely be very short and broad in focus. No specifics other than making sure each individual has their own freedoms retained.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

I would imagine than in either extreme law or chaos societies could not exist successfully unless the society's populace had some unique defining characteristic (like a telepathic hive mind for formians).

Chaotic societies might work best as small family groups or villages where there is less of a need for large communication or consensus. I think in chaotic societies might be more permissive in letting people do what they want to, but the people of the society (or each familial segment) might need to be somewhat homogenuous in order to understand and interact with each other in peaceful, meaningful ways without the need of a greater authority or a set of laws. An implicit set of rules loosely applied with varying interpretation might work as well.

 

[Crothian]

Well, I happen to have that book, so I took a look through it just now. Nope, the section you're thinking of isn't there. But I do remember seeing something like that in an early D20 book, and I'm sure I've got it.

So if anyone recalls the title, I'll dig through my D&D bookcase for it.

The more I think about it, the more I think it was only the evil alignments and thus in AEG's Evil.

 

[Trickstergod]

I think you need some basis for what law and chaos are for you to begin with.

For me, lawfulness is group-oriented, sacrificing some of the individual's benefits in favor of the community.

Conversely, chaos is more individual-oriented, sacrificing some of the communities benefits in favor of the individual.

The best example of this that comes to mind would be privacy; a society that completely takes away someones privacy would be lawful, whereas one that grants complete privacy to the individual would be chaotic. Or, at the least, would trend towards that in those specific instances. The lack of privacy ostensibly benefits the community whereas the right of privacy ostensibly benefits the individual. Not necessarily completely true, but I think it works as a decent example.

As such, a chaotic society could, conceivably, be veritably riddled with laws. Mainly bent towards the protection of the individual. As well as the fact that the community may be wrong. The USA was, at one point, like this and still is, to a degree. It's individual-oriented and possesses a few laws that could be read as allowances for rebellion.

At the most basic level, I'd say any society where anyone could conceivably take the reins of power also falls into the realm of a chaotic society. Thus, the sometimes stereotypical "Challenge the chieftain, kill him, and become chieftain" society would be chaotic, presuming just anyone (or nearly anyone) could challenge said chieftain.

Generally speaking, though, society and government seems to be an inherently Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil thing in my eyes.

As someone more or less said in another alignment thread, I may not be able to explain law and chaos, but I know it when I see it. Community and individual-oriented seems to be the best way to put it, at least for me.

 

[Nifft]

I'm with TricksterGod on this one. Chaos == Individualistic.

And all those implications regarding various nations full of individualistic individuals.

-- N

 

[Sebastian Francis]

I think you need some basis for what law and chaos are for you to begin with.

For me, lawfulness is group-oriented, sacrificing some of the individual's benefits in favor of the community.

Conversely, chaos is more individual-oriented, sacrificing some of the communities benefits in favor of the individual.

It's fine to have your own beliefs about law and chaos, but the issue in this thread is how law and chaos are defined *in Dungeons & Dragons*, and whether, by *those* definitions, a chaotic society could function.

It seems to me that these alignment threads *always* get side-tracked by people sharing their own private beliefs about good/evil, law/chaos, instead of focusing on *the game*.

 

[Nifft]

It's fine to have your own beliefs about law and chaos, but the issue in this thread is how law and chaos are defined *in Dungeons & Dragons*, and whether, by *those* definitions, a chaotic society could function.

It seems to me that these alignment threads *always* get side-tracked by people sharing their own private beliefs about good/evil, law/chaos, instead of focusing on *the game*.

Would you do us all a big favor and just post a quick, totally unambiguous definition of Chaos and Law?

I've always been curious.

-- N

PS: Don't just dump in an SRD quote. If that wasn't ambiguous, we wouldn't be having this delightful chat.

 

[Thanee]

Yep. The rules state that having individual rights is chaotic and having a bill of rights is lawful. Thus, the only means by which a chatoric good society can actually come into existence is inherently anti-chaotic.

Why should that be?

If we have a purely chaotic society, then no laws are needed to ensure individual rights, since every citizen will respect every others individual rights, since every citizen will have the same moral standards, which emphasize individual rights, not just your own, but every individual's. Chaotic is not egoistic.

A purely chaotic society is therefore the ideal mature community, where no regulations are necessary, because everyone gets along well without them.

Bye
Thanee