Is it possible to have a Chaotic society?

[Valiantheart]

I drop them. Quite simple, actually. Since there is no alignment, there is no protection from, etc. OTOH, there are spells that allow you to channel your god's might against unbelievers (Smite Unbeliever, etc.).

Alignment is nowhere near the necessity to D&D that most people think it is. Drop alignment and you drop more headaches than you gain.

Look at the arguments we have on this thread; we cannot even agree on a common definition of Law and Chaos, much less Good and Evil. Even in the game these Absolutes play out far from absolute.

Drop alignment, drop your problems.

I agree with you. I dont use alignment either but I have a sort of divine energy. Works against anyone who doesnt belive in the same faith. Nice and clean that way. I find it simplifies things and makes them more intriguing at the same time.

 

[Psion]

Look at the arguments we have on this thread; we cannot even agree on a common definition of Law and Chaos, much less Good and Evil.

People can't agree on the balance of spells, classes, etc., either. The human condition is hardly a valid case for objectivizing your take on alignment.

Even in the game these Absolutes play out far from absolute.

The flaw with this statement is that they are not absolutes. In terms of ethical philosophy, the alignment system is a realist moral theory. A realist theory not need be absolutist, which you seem to be implying here. There can be a moral theory which purports that there is an objective "right answer" in a given situation without being absolutist; realist theories can be sensitive to conditions.

Philosophers have been debating this long before D&D was a mote in Gygax's eye and this argument by relativists has been debunked thoroughly. Don't repeat their mistakes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

PC: Who is your leader?
Barbs: We have no leader. Each warrior does as he pleases.
PC: Okay...well is there a representative, someone who can speak for the tribe?
Barbs: No barbarian may presume to speak for another.
PC: Well, how can I get the tribe to listen?
Barbs. I dunno. Talking?

This is exactly why I think real world examples are more appropriate than fantasy literature examples. This is a great series of lines illustrating cultural differences. However, it's almost certain that, in practice, any real "barbarian" tribe would have certain respected members whose voices and opinions commanded more than just their own lives. Their leaders might not have formally recognized positions--although most do--but they would exist. Using fantasy literature as primary examples gives us a greater tendency to take dialogues like this at face value.

If someone has a high regard for traditions and conventions as set forth by his family, he is "lawful" by the D&D convention even if his conventions make him an outlaw in the society he is in. By the same token, if someone is a free spirit, they are so whether or not most of the remaining parts of society are also that way.

This is really the straw that breaks the camel's back for the law/chaos alignment axis as far as I'm concerned. This is a very clearly a part of the D&D concept of law/chaos and has been so from the beginning. Yet IRL, it has nothing to do with the tendencies of people towards ordered societies, societies that respect property rights, the rule of law rather than the rule of men, or any of the other ideas associated with law in D&D.

Quite the opposite. IRL, "primitive" cultures with fewer formal institutions and fewer formal power structures are generally far more traditionally minded than more modern cultures with intricate power structures and thousands of pages of formalized law. This is true in gaming tradition as well. The stereotypical barbarians follow their traditions in the face of the laws of the civilized men of the cities. In D&Dland, that generally makes them chaotic. Every single chaotic shaman/druid following tribe, every single third world kleptocracy, every middle eastern modelled monarchy is filled to the brim with so-called chaotic tribesmen who have very high regards for the traditions and customs set forth by their tribe and family--often higher than the neutral and lawful-neutral city dwellers have for their laws. (Think about how many times the N or LN city watch has been portrayed as corrupt; then think about how many mods have featured a corrupt (human or PC race) CN Or CG tribal chief who could be bribed to ignore the traditions of his people. The difference is instructive). Of course, by other standards that are equally a part of the D&D ideas of law and chaos, those tribesmen are equally paragons of chaos.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to rate highly-traditionalist tribal cultures as LN or N, but my ideas on alignment were formed well before 3e - the 3e descriptions are a bit different from prior editions. I have as much variation in 'primitive' cultures as in modern/urban ones - Lawful tribes & Chaotic tribes, Lawful cities & Chaotic cities. Eg: I have Norse Viking types with a 'Chaotic' individualist clan-based culture, and Mongol-style ancestor-worshippers with a 'Lawful' group-oriented clan-based culture. Lawful here doesn't include telling the truth or behaving honourably towards strangers, though, it's about intra-group relations and general worldview. Likewise there are Lawful urban cultures (Germany, Japan) and Chaotic ones (Greece, Italy).

 

[Wombat]

The flaw with this statement is that they are not absolutes. In terms of ethical philosophy, the alignment system is a realist moral theory. A realist theory not need be absolutist, which you seem to be implying here. There can be a moral theory which purports that there is an objective "right answer" in a given situation without being absolutist; realist theories can be sensitive to conditions.

The only reason I call them Absolutes (with the capital) is because of the premise of the game, not of reality. So if we are to argue about Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil here on these boards, we are talking about D&D terminology, not the looser moral standards of our own world.

Now here is the problem:

"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are forces that define the cosmos." (p.87 PHB, 3.0 edition)

OTOH

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other." (ibid)

Each alignment in D&D supposedly has a definition and that definition should apply to the individual's actions and society (at least in the aggragate) -- this suggests alignments are Absolutes. Conversely, the alignments are supposed to be open to personal interpretation, thus alignments are [/I]not Absolutes. To put it simply, D&D is trying to have it both ways, which leads to a lot of confusion.

However if we cannot agree on the interpretation of these D&D moral terms, then they appear to have no useful place or meaning in the game.

This is not meant as an attack on anyone; if I offend anyone with this, I am truly & deeply sorry. All I am trying to say is that the alignment system, while seemingly intrinsic to the core concepts of D&D, is itself ill-defined and ultimately unuseful. If alignments are absolutes, then all the alignment-based spells and items make perfect sense, as there are set definitions by which they are able to act or not act -- nice binary decision. If alignments are not absolutes, but rather more in the realm of "fuzzy bordered concepts", then the alignment-based spells, etc., are themselves open to wide interpretation -- I detect this man is evil because he is doing evil things at the present moment, I may smite the good person because he is being good at the moment. This is more a matter of game mechanics then real world philosophy, although there is an obvious wash between the two.

Again, my apologies if this brings any offense.

 

[LuYangShih]

Again, most of the interpetations here are subjective, not objective. First off, real world cultures are poor examples. Not only do they not operate in a system using the D&D alignments, but they are far too detailed in comparison to most in game cultures. Elder-Basilisk pointed out that most cultures from fantasy literature are not intricately detailed, and to that I say, of course. Neither are most cultures in game worlds.

When I create a culture in my own world, I usually give them a few basic attributes, a simple way their society operates, a few laws perhaps, and that is all. Now, by the D&D system, I want to be able, based on those "few" facts, to be able to assign an alignment. This is very easy with Good and Evil, but it is more difficult with Law and Chaos. However, I do not think this is a valid excuse to throw out Law and Chaos from the D&D alignment system.

Now, for me, Law is simply a more focused, disciplined approach, while Chaos is more fluid in its stance on issues. I like to use deities and religion from D&D cultures as examples, as they are the easiest to quanitfy and differentiate from each other. Take Cyric, a CE deity from the FR, Vs. Bane, a LE deity, for example. The difference in approach is obvious, and one is clearly Chaotic, while the other is clearly Lawful. Now, if it is that easy to quantify deities, why is it so hard to quantify cultures?

 

[Al]

The problem with defining the alignment of 'society' is that it is very contingent upon whether one defines 'society' as defined by high political movements or broad social movements. I've only got time at the moment to deal with the politics- perhaps I'll put my opinions on society later.

From a high political point-of-view, the usual maxim is that democracies tend to be more chaotic than dictatorships. It is now necessary to revise this view. Lawfulness is based on the inherent regard for tradition, pre-existing laws and rules (especially constitutions in this respect). They are 'conservative' in the true sense of the word, in that they attempt to preserve the status quo. Chaos, by contrast, holds no such regard, rather emphasising the betterment of society (CG), the advancement of self (CE) or a balance thereof (CN), and ignoring any pre-existing laws.

Now let us apply that to democracies and dictatorships. The Roman Emperor, according to Dr Chris Kelly (leading expert on late Imperial Rome), could "abrogate existing laws at will" i.e. one person could conceivably overturn all which had gone before, without constitutional checks and balances. Which does this map more closely? Chaos. Conversely, American democracy, with written constitutions, a sharing of powers (legislative, executive, judicature), a complex electoral college system and a comparative difficulty of constitutional reform (2/3 majority IIRC) is lawful, despite being democratic. Incidentally, of course, it is impossible to map Lawful/Chaotic onto Left/Right- Thatcher and Reagan were far more chaotic than the old Labour leaders of the 70s like Callaghan.

It is important to note that under this high political definition, traditional tribal society is very *lawful*. They continue to worship the traditional gods, continue to follow the same patterns of behaviour, have traditonal customs, traditional dress...it is traditional and continuity which is the sine qua non, not a fluid moulding of the status quo. Elected chieftains does not alter this. It is further important to note that 'chaotic' behaviour does not indicate a lawful society: the Vikings are cited as chaotic in pillaging etc., but their basic society is one rooted in the past, hence their strong grounding in sagas and mythology.

Simply put, therefore, IMO, the single determining factor of lawfulness/chaos in terms of politics is one's attitude towards the status quo. Lawfuls tend to see an inherent regard in it (see Burke) as a culmination of factors. They regard its existence as self-evident of its empirical value (Hegel: "What is actual is rational"). Chaotics repudiate it, seeking to build a new society from the ground up...placing minimal value in it and regarding it as no better than any other theorised or postulated model. Neutrals fall somewhere in between.

In conclusion, therefore, it is possibly to have a chaotic society, but it would be rare. A society constantly in state of flux would be chaotic, but rarely would it be successful. Nineteenth-century France, with its myriad of different and contradictory regimes (First Republic, Directory, Napoleonic Empire, Restored Bourbon Monarchy, Orleanist Monarchy, Republic, Second Empire, Third Republic, Commune...) would probably be the best example of a chaotic society, with successive models being instituted and the status quo being routinely cast aside. Revolutions, not mere radical reform (which is neutral with chaotic tendencies) would be commonplace. Regimes would come and go. Laws would be made and broken. A chaotic society can exist, but I, for one, would not wish to live there.

 

[LuYangShih]

That is an inherent problem I see with the system, actually. The Chaotic alignment is usually viewed as inferior to the Lawful alignment. Chaos is cited as being ineffecient, unorganized, and plain stupid in many cases in the D&D system. This is no doubt the result of the 1E fact of Lawful being the "better" alignment.

Ineffecieny, lack of discipline, and other such factors should be a determination of intellectual statistics, both for characters and societies at large. A Chaotic society should not be one doomed to destruction after a few years, or decades, or even centuries. If Chaos is to be part an integral part of the D&D system, than it needs to be able to function just as well as its counterpart.

The problem, as mentioned earlier in the thread, seems to be that many take the standpoint that any society lasting beyond a few years, with traditions or structured governments, is neccessarily Lawful. I do not agree with this stance. Even the Orcs have traditions, and you could argue they are the most clearly Chaotic culture D&D has yet to produce.

 

[Psion]

The only reason I call them Absolutes (with the capital) is because of the premise of the game, not of reality. So if we are to argue about Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil here on these boards, we are talking about D&D terminology, not the looser moral standards of our own world.

The "looser moral standards of our world?" You'll pardon me if I say that term is meaningless. People have all kinds of moral standards and ethical philophies that they operate under. The only difference is that they have selected a realist moral philosophy in D&D and set it up as the "true and correct one".

You are right though that D&D's morality is something distinct from reality. But that's the problem with most people's denigration of alignment. Just because they can't personally grasp a verifiable realist ethical philosophy, they decide that one shouldn't exist in the game. Which is bizarre to me, because it is a game.

Now here is the problem:

"Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are forces that define the cosmos." (p.87 PHB, 3.0 edition)

OTOH

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other." (ibid)[/b]

There is nothing at all contradictory about thos statements. There are only 9 alignments in the alignment model, they cover all reasoning beings. Certainly, there is room in any one of the nine for large degrees of variation.

Each alignment in D&D supposedly has a definition and that definition should apply to the individual's actions and society (at least in the aggragate) -- this suggests alignments are Absolutes.

Having a definition does not make an ethical theory "absolute." It is only absolute if a single principle in undefeasible. This is not the case in the D&D alignment system.

Conversely, the alignments are supposed to be open to personal interpretation, thus alignments are [/I]not Absolutes.

You are wrong here on two points:
1) Absolute != not open to interperetation.
2) Alignments are not open to anyone's interperetation but the DM's. That still does not make it a straighjacket; I think you fail to understand what the phrase "alignment is not a straightjacket" means. It means that alignment is evaluative. It does not compel your character to do anything. You decide what your character is like and then decide what alignment applies.

To put it simply, D&D is trying to have it both ways, which leads to a lot of confusion.

Oh? I don't see any way in which it is "trying to have it both ways." You are conflating two orthogonal principles.

However if we cannot agree on the interpretation of these D&D moral terms, then they appear to have no useful place or meaning in the game.

See my prior post on the validity of that argument.

All I am trying to say is that the alignment system, while seemingly intrinsic to the core concepts of D&D, is itself ill-defined and ultimately unuseful.

And you say that despite the fact that many people seem to have no problem with it whatsoever. The problem comes when people misunderstand it (which you seem to) or cannot shake their relativist mindset when it comes to the game.

If alignments are absolutes, then all the alignment-based spells and items make perfect sense, as there are set definitions by which they are able to act or not act -- nice binary decision. If alignments are not absolutes,

Once again, having definitions does not make a moral theory an absolute. It can be sensitive to circumstances.

but rather more in the realm of "fuzzy bordered concepts", then the alignment-based spells, etc., are themselves open to wide interpretation

Again, the only person that his such a license is the DM; nobody within the mileu.

-- I detect this man is evil because he is doing evil things at the present moment, I may smite the good person because he is being good at the moment.

Which again shows that problems with alignment stem from misunderstanding it, since alignment detecting spells and effects do not work this way. They act upon alignment not "current thoughts or actions" and alignment does not vary according to what a character is doing or thinking at the moment.

 

[Wombat]

Which again shows that problems with alignment stem from misunderstanding it, since alignment detecting spells and effects do not work this way. They act upon alignment not "current thoughts or actions" and alignment does not vary according to what a character is doing or thinking at the moment.

Okay, we seem to be talking around several of the same notions using different terminology, but let's take this point.

Given: There are spells and items that target a character based on the character's alignment.

Given: Alignment is open both to interpretation and to individual acts that may vary from moment to moment

Problem: What, then, is the spell targetting?

If alignment has no absolute criteria, no set of absolute actions, how does the spell or item know when to act?

If a character is, say, "marginally Chaotic" (falls more under the Chaotic rubric as defined in the game, but is edging towards Neutrality), does that character still take the same damage from an anti-Chaos item as a character who is fully and unequivicolly Chaotic? Is there a threshold act or series of acts that marks one as Chaotic?

Equally, what if one society defines an act as Evil, yet another defines it as Good? Or maybe this is not even possible? If it is not possible? Is there an overarching set of circumstances that all societies, without variance, accept as Evil?

These are a few of the problems that I see with the alignment system. I could give some specifics from my own studies and background, but I think this would just muddy the water.