Actually, of the interpretations I consider, the first two are objective. The necessary relativity of the latter options was presented in order to demonstrate that they're not viable meanings for Law/Chaos in D&D. The real problem is that the D&D notions of Law and Chaos arbitrarily bind together factors which actually correlate negatively IRL and consequently are incoherent.
This is amply demonstrated if you consider which societies Scarbobank describes as deserving lawful/chaotic monikers:
I think that if you live in a society where you can rise, by your own merit, hard work and/or cleverness, from the humblest of beginnings to become socially influential, wealthy and/or politically powerful, chances are that's a "Chaotic" culture. If, however, the nature of your ancestors determines your future (commoners only begetting commoners, aristocrats siring nobility, ranchers raising cow men and not sheep herders, et cetera) then it's likely that "Lawful" is the tag that your society will carry.
side by side with the societies that Dr. Strangemonkey describes as chaotic:
From all I've heard and read, a most dangerous contingent condition, the Comanche seem to have been a good model of a pretty successful chaotic society.
Lots of bands with pretty different values that had the capacity to join together for massive projects but lacked the coherence to ever really formulate treaties or stable institutions.
Early Germans would have been similar. Remember that Kings among them were originally temporary elected officials similar, in some ways, to Roman Dictators.
You'll notice that the two of them describe entirely different, and often conflicting notions of law and chaos.
According to Scarbobanc, the defining factor is social mobility and the power of entrenched tradition. According to Dr. Strangemonkey, the important factor is the coherence to formulate treaties and/or stable institutions. Both of these interpretations have deep roots within fantasy literature and the history of D&D. Unfortunately, there is no real correspondence between stable institutions and social mobility as can be demonstrated by looking at a few examples.
I think real life examples are better than examples from fantasy literature for several reasons. First, a lot of fantasy literature is shallow and unrealistic in its portrayals of cultures. Second, fantasy literature generally exists to tell a story rather than as an ethnographic study. As such, the institutions and culture of a society will generally be described only in a time of crisis and only as they impact the particular individuals who the story follows. I read all of David Gemmel's Druss books but I couldn't tell you much about the cultures and societies that Druss visited. Finally, much fantasy literature is based upon real world legends and history. I've read all of the Chronicles of Narnia but I couldn't really say a whole lot about the culture and society of Calormen. They keep slaves. They're ruled by a Tisroc who's usually rather machiavellian. They worship Tash. They're a highly stratified society. They seem to be based off of a blending of the Ottoman Empire with Arabian Nights and colored villainous. It's not a lot to go on. In David Gemmel's other books, for instance, we find a blending of the Arthurian legend with the society of Imperial Rome and the rise of Julius Ceasar. However, if I cut out the middleman and use real-world examples, I get ones we have a whole lot more complete information about.
However, to start the examples, let's use some classic fantasy examples. The Noldor of the First Age live in a rather highly stratified society. They are ruled by kings and authority and power seem to travel very strictly along lines of inheritance. They have strong laws (such as those keeping Gondolin the hidden city). They have institutions (the high king of the Noldor, the league of Maehdros (IIRC), the guards and armies of the various cities, etc). They are disciplined in battle. They take oaths very seriously. All told, they sound pretty lawful according to Dr. Strangemonkey's definition.
However, when Finrod Felagund dies, Turin Turambar eventually becomes the leader of Nagrothrond because of his consumate skill. Even though he isn't an elf, he is able to rise from humble beginnings as an outcast and a bandit to be the ruler of one of the great elven cities. Similarly, after the death of Turgon in the fall of Gondolin, it is Tuor--another man who rose from a humble warrior living the life of an outlaw to become the leader of a group of elves--who leads them to the havens. So, according to Scarbobanc's definition, they're chaotic.
Similarly, the United States has a longer history of stable government than almost any other contemporary country in the world. It has strong institutions which proved successful. Dr. Strangemonkey: lawful. But it is one of the most socially mobile societies in the world--a place where money is enough to give one a place among the elite and a place where fortunes are made and lost regularly. So, by Scarbobanc, we're chaotic.
Similarly, the medieval Holy Roman Empire had notoriously weak and ineffectual institutions and was regularly defied by its powerful princes and even some of its cities. And the cities and princes and robber barons warred among themselves quite regularly. By Dr. Strangemonkey's standards, they're chaotic. But they had a highly stratified society divided between the nobility and the peasants and even in the cities, the patriciate and the guilds generally controlled the city councils. There was very little social mobility. So, by Scarbobanc's standards, they're lawful.
The D&D ideas of Law and Chaos clearly include both Scarbobanc and Dr. Strangemonkey's ideas. (Scarbobanc's standard is probably why elves are considered Chaotic and Dr. Strangemonkey's standard is why places like Cormyr are considered lawful). In fact, I suspect it includes quite a few more ideas. The problem is that none of these ideas properly belong together. Societies which are prime examples of one lawful attribute may equally embody a different Chaotic attribute. Similarly, people who emobdy a Chaotic attribute frequently embody lawful attributes as well. If it were simply a matter of a small degree of one kind of lawfulness coupled with a bit of chaoticness, it might be enough to simply throw up one's hands and say "they're neutral." But we're talking about societies embodying both extremes (as societies go) of Lawfulness and extremes of Chaos. If those regularly coexist (and they seem to do so in real life as well as in fantasy literature), it's a good indication that Law and Chaos may be incoherent and explanatorily impotent as descriptions of societies or people.
Now, a fair amount of that can be applied to ideas of good and evil as well. Most societies after all, have done things which are emblematic of evil and things which are emblems of good. Americans sent smallpox blankets to Indians but rescued the Jews from concentration camps. Etc. Etc. If it doesn't make ideas of good and evil incoherent or inapplicable to society, why would it do that to ideas of law and chaos?
For one thing, ideas of good and evil have a connative, evaluative element that ideas of law and chaos lack (purporting to be merely descriptive). This gives them a dimension of usefulness beyond description. Even if we can't say that the US is good or evil, we can still say that particular actions or elements of its history are good or evil (slavery=evil, emancipation=good is the common example) and have that be meaningful. And we can say that many of the people in a particular country are good or evil and have an idea what that means--an idea which is consistent with our prior evaluations of actions. For another, good and evil have moderately clear (at least in various communities--the particulars may differ from community to community but most of them at least have a moderately coherent idea of what
they think is good and what they think is evil) and massively important meanings in real life. Law and Chaos don't. Lots of times, people will say, "I did it because it was the right thing to do." Or they will refuse to do something because it's wrong/evil. I've yet to meet anyone who refused to do something because it would be Chaotic. Or anyone who meant Lawful in the D&D sense when she said "it was the lawful thing to do." D&D ideas of Law and Chaos are artificial constructs without real world analogs. It might well be possible to analyze them philosophically and come up with some kind of scheme to rationalize them and make them coherent enough to be used for something. But since, unlike good and evil, nobody really cares about them IRL, there's no reason to bother. D&D games are much better off without them.
LuYangShih said:
Elder-Basilisk has interesting points, but they are based on what is inherently a false assumption. The D&D alignment system is not subjective, it is objective. No matter what societal values present, a Chaotic person is always Chaotic, and a Lawful person is always Lawful. This does not change if you take a Chaotic person out of one society and place them in another, and vice versa for the Lawfully aligned person.
PS
Why use examples from the real world? This is D&D. Examples from fantasy literature or movies would be much better.
