Is it possible to have a Chaotic society?

[Utrecht]

Absolutely. However, if you were to make that statement, you would be operating on two different definitions of law and chaos--one for society and one for individuals. Saying that chaotic people can make a lawful society doesn't mean much when the chaoticness of the people has nothing to do with the lawfulness of the society. It also disregards what D&D normally means by giving a society an alignment--it's the alignment of the largest plurality of individuals in the society.

On this I think that the D&D standard of utilizing the plurality of the individuls is inherently flawed - where the society fits on the good/evil/chaos/law axis has more to do with its societal structures and power centers (such as police and government) than with the actual populance.

Except that I'm maintaining that societies don't REALLY have any tendencies WRT Law and Chaos. And that nobody thinks in those terms. They're an arbitrary and misleading description of individual and societal tendencies because they lead people to connect concepts which are not and never have been connected.

Individual/community orientation, formal/informal power structures, stable/unstable governments and institutions, mental discipline/inconsistency, etc are all recognizable societal and psychological traits but any correlation they actually have to each other is actually opposite what the Law/Chaos D&Dism would lead one to believe.

I think that here, you and I would disagree - fundamentally, I see most societies as LN to LE - fundamentally, they wish to preserve their current institutions (through law, enforcement, societal mores) - often times at the expense of neighbors and even subsets of the populance. The do this through a series of codefied laws/and or traditions - depending on the "sophistication" of the society.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think we're as far apart as you think. Were I to accept the definition of law as conservative--wishing to preserve the status quo--then I would probably agree with this. However, that renders the idea of chaos somewhat moot because there are no chaotic societies (except those which are disintegrating--Collin Turnbull's description of the Ugandan Ik tribe in _The Mountain People_ would be an example of this) and there are few chaotic people. Even those who wish to overthrow traditional society, mores, etc usually invoke the myth of progress (things have progressed in this way for the past hundred years and therefore should continue to progress in this way) or the idea of turning back the clock ("the other side wishes to go back to the 1950's etc") in order to demonstrate that they are in favor of keeping things the way they are but that the other side wishes to change (in this case to change back). And those who wish to change traditions, etc usually wish to change the institutions and mores of a wider or larger society to match that of their own subculture. And in that case, saying that a society is lawful doesn't tell one anything other than that it's a (semi) functioning society. It reduces the idea of law and chaos to a meaningless tautology.

It also ignores part of the traditional D&D definition of law and chaos. Since the beginning, personal freedom has been viewed as an attribute of chaos and conformity to tradition has been viewed as an attribute of law. (Thus arranged marriages are seen as lawful institutions and going along with one would be a sign of lawfulness whereas a chaotic individual would likely flee an arranged marriage). However, by amalgamating the idea of formal law and tradition, both traditional societies which go along with arranged marriages by tradition and western societies to whom the idea of an arranged marriage is abhorrent but who govern marriages with a formal system of laws are lawful. And since, written laws in the western world are designed to protect personal freedom, even those for whom freedom is paramount are lawful. And if everyone is lawful then it doesn't give any more information to say "he's lawful" than to say that "he exists."

Our key difference is that you are willing to jettison most of the traditional D&D ideas that go into lawfulness and keep one (stability and conservatism) while I see that idea as incapable of carrying the weight that is typically put on the lawful alignment descriptor. I think its reduction to tautological status when applied to groups demonstrates that fact. (Heck, Slaadi society is probably lawful by that definition).

Your post does demonstrate an interesting point though. Ideas of Lawful Evil, Lawful Good, and Lawful Neutral are much more coherent and well-defined than law and chaos are in the abstract. It's easier to describe a lawful evil personality or society than a lawful one without the evil. I would suggest that this is because the D&D lawful and chaotic alignments are parasitic upon the good and evil descriptors (which actually have meanings). Lawful good means a particular kind of good. Lawful neutral is like lawful good only not so good. Lawful evil is a particular kind of evil. Unfortunately, even this appearance of precision is false--an artifact of D&D traditions which don't coincide with any of the traditional definitions of law and chaos. (And it's demonstrated by the fact that, for any lawful good or chaotic good character, there is an equally strong argument that they are actually chaotic good or lawful good. (My Living Greyhawk Cleric of Pelor for instance has always been played according to the same personality and priorities yet his alignment has shifted from neutral good to lawful good to chaotic good and back to lawful good over his 8 levels. Ordinarily, people might see that as an indication that he's really neutral good but that's a cop-out. None of the arguments would make him neutral; they all make him either strongly chaotic or strongly lawful. So it's an indication that D&D law and chaos are incoherent concepts rather than that the character is neutral).

I think that here, you and I would disagree - fundamentally, I see most societies as LN to LE - fundamentally, they wish to preserve their current institutions (through law, enforcement, societal mores) - often times at the expense of neighbors and even subsets of the populance. The do this through a series of codefied laws/and or traditions - depending on the "sophistication" of the society.

 

[fusangite]

I would argue that the American constitution and Declaration of Independence are good examples of trying to strike a "neutral" balance between law and chaos. When American courts enforce people's privacy rights and other individual rights at the expense of law enforcement and public order, they are trying to be Chaotic Good.

For many years, those of Chaotic alignment have backed the Republicans but, with the Patriot Act and War on Terror, many Chaotic voters are now faced with two parties equally lawful in their ideology rather than the Lawful Democratic Party and the Neutral Republican Party. Best to leave good/evil out of this discussion.

 

[Utrecht]

It also ignores part of the traditional D&D definition of law and chaos. Since the beginning, personal freedom has been viewed as an attribute of chaos and conformity to tradition has been viewed as an attribute of law. (Thus arranged marriages are seen as lawful institutions and going along with one would be a sign of lawfulness whereas a chaotic individual would likely flee an arranged marriage). However, by amalgamating the idea of formal law and tradition, both traditional societies which go along with arranged marriages by tradition and western societies to whom the idea of an arranged marriage is abhorrent but who govern marriages with a formal system of laws are lawful. And since, written laws in the western world are designed to protect personal freedom, even those for whom freedom is paramount are lawful. And if everyone is lawful then it doesn't give any more information to say "he's lawful" than to say that "he exists."

Our key difference is that you are willing to jettison most of the traditional D&D ideas that go into lawfulness and keep one (stability and conservatism) while I see that idea as incapable of carrying the weight that is typically put on the lawful alignment descriptor. I think its reduction to tautological status when applied to groups demonstrates that fact. (Heck, Slaadi society is probably lawful by that definition).

You are not quite correct that I am willing to Jettison D&D fabric of alignment for societies - rather I feel that the very nature of society makes them lawful - and that after a certain threshold of populance (50-60 people) a society simply can not be chaotic (with the notable exception of anarchy). Now admitedly there are shades of lawfulness. Soviet Russia is more lawful that the current US who is more lawful than present day Somalia... Therefore having a chaotic society is anathem - much like having a good demon.......

Now regarding other societies than human/elven/dwarven. - particularly clan based humanoids like orcs. To me, these can be chaotic - the ruler is the one who can take power and keep it - and as such enforces/creates the "rules" based off of whims. I have always smiled at Slaadi society - because I think there is an inherent bit of law there - blue ->red ->green-> death that is pre-programed into them - but is a discussion for another thread

Now this is contrasted with individual ethos - which can cover the entire spectrum and where D&D alignment work OK..... Thus you can have chaotic individual working within the confines of a larger lawful society.

 

[reiella]

Part of the 'problem' comes about from two different ideas of what it means for a society to be "chaotic".

1) Most of the people in the society are chaotic.

or

2) The system (or lack there of) in place to govern the society is chaotic.

For the first, you can have a rigid legal system, just happens that most people don't care for it and go about their own business. It could also potentially be a situation where a 'lawful government' is oppressing the 'chaotic populace'.

For the second, it could simply refer to an anarchy, a barbarian tribe, despotism, or simply a government with 'fluid' rules and heavily inclined toward "individual rights".

Personally I much perfer to refer to societies in terms of their people, and just use their governments as another 'trait'.

 

[s/LaSH]

I have this to say:

Look at the Goa'uld from Stargate. If you're a System Lord, how safe are you under the laws? I rest my case.

There's chaos for you, and they ruled the galaxy with an iron fist for ten thousand years.

 

[LoneWolf23]

One of the biggest problems I've seen in this debate is the tendancy to try and categorize societies as either Completly Lawful or Completly Chaotic. Not every society will be one extreme over the other, after all. Heck, a society might be Neutral in regards to Law or Chaos, or even flux from Lawful to Neutral to Chaotic over time.

Take the Romans: in the early days of the Empire, the Romans were very much Lawful, with a stable political system, a well-organised government, social classes and even a system of patronage... Around the end of the Empire, however, the social system had already begun crumbling with corruption, and in the end the Empire was taken over by the barbarians who had begun invading it, and Rome became chaotic...

Edit: Additional - Societies can have different levels of Law and Chaos then just extremes: Take the USA, for exemple. That is a society I'd define as Neutral in terms of Law/Chaos: there are laws that establish social order, but those laws are fluid and determined primarily by the people, for the people.

The Celts, who were a chaotic people, still had laws, though they were mainly used as customs to handle certain situations, rather then strict guidelines to follow.

And the Empires of Emperors such as Ch'in were mainly Lawful, though they were so big, with such large and complex bureaucracies that seemed Chaotic when seen from the outside.

Alignment isn't always about Complete extremes, you know. Sometimes it's just a matter of how you're more one way then another.

 

[Talath]

Elder Basilisk, that is an incredible post you have written.

Just to throw my two copper in, I think a Lawful society would be one where everyone pitched in to attain a goal or desired end (such as greater good or greater evil) while a Chaotic society would be one where most people worried about their own gain.

So for example, early colonial America could be described as Lawful (the squabbling states banded together to oppose a common foe) while, say, a kingdom of squabbling merchant princes would be chaotic, since they don't band together because they are too busy opposing each other and working to attain their own goals.

Basically, the greater "good" versus individual desires.

 

[S'mon]

Elder Basilisk, that is an incredible post you have written.

Just to throw my two copper in, I think a Lawful society would be one where everyone pitched in to attain a goal or desired end (such as greater good or greater evil) while a Chaotic society would be one where most people worried about their own gain.

So for example, early colonial America could be described as Lawful (the squabbling states banded together to oppose a common foe) while, say, a kingdom of squabbling merchant princes would be chaotic, since they don't band together because they are too busy opposing each other and working to attain their own goals.

Basically, the greater "good" versus individual desires.

Sounds like a description of (Chaotic) Good vs (Chaotic) Neutral to me.

 

[fusangite]

From reading the posts, an interesting question is coming to the fore. Basically, when it comes to large societies (I'm excluding tribes and other small groups), there seem to be two equally compelling definitions of a chaotic society:
(a) a society like the early republic United States in which the power of the state to make rules was circumscribed by an ethos of freedom based on clearly codified individual rights
(b) a society like imperial Russia in which there was a chaotic, constantly shifting semi-autonomous bureaucracy and service gentry enforcing the whims of a despot with no real sense of the rule of law and no concept of individual rights

I would argue that (a) is Chaotic Good and (b) is Lawful Evil but a lot of people seem to believe that (b) is an example of chaotic government because the experience of living under the regime is one of disorder.