Is it possible to have a Chaotic society?

[LuYangShih]

As I have said so many times before, societal influences do not determine the morality of your actions in the D&D system. If an action is Evil, than it is always Evil, regardless of what society has to say on the matter. Societal values are values that are supposed to be represented mostly through the Chaotic and Lawful part of the alignment axis. The reason I posted this thread is I see few examples of Chaotic societies throughout D&D products, and I was wondering what everyone thought such a society would be like.

This has turned into an argument over the definition of Law and Chaos within the D&D system, and whether or not it is practical to use the system when defining the alignment of a society. I think that it is practical to do so, but aside from theocratic societies, it seems that most people disagree on the meaning of Chaos and Law within a society. I think a Chaotic society would be one with a great possibilty for change, fluid leadership positions, and great possibility for personal advancement. The Orc societies in the D&D system fit this model, as do the Underdark Drow societies presented in the Forgotten Realms.

What bothers me is there are few examples of truly Chaotic societies for the CN or CG alignments. The Elven societies I have observed in various D&D worlds are actually quite lawful, having strict rules, a set, unchanging leadership, often hereditary in nature. Changes within Elven societies are rare, and often difficult transitions. Finally, most Elven societies present limited opportunities for personal advancement within their own realms of influence. I suspect this is because of the influence of Tolkiens Elves, who were decidedly Lawful in their natures, rather than Chaotic.

 

[Psion]

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

Well, even after advised to the indelicate meaning and inappropriateness of the use "absolute", you press on in using it in what appears to be a fault manner. I cannot really communicate with you when the term as you use it seems way too imprecise to handle the delicacies of the situation.

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

Okay.

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

No, not given. I have already established that it is not open to any interpretation within the mileu. You keep pressing this point, but it is incorrect.

Problem: What, then, is the spell targetting?

The spell is targeting alignment, which is a non-subjective agent evaluation under the realist moral theory embodied by the alignment system. It is not act evaluation.

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

Since your question is riddled with faulty premises, I cannot credibly answer.

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?

DM call. But under the system as it exists, this character is either chaotic, or he is not. He may be chaotic with neutral tendencies or neutral with chaotic tendencies. That is for the DM to decide. There is no fuzziness and you seem to want to attribute to it though; the alignment system ignores the "tendencies" part for such purposes.

If you really want to model this in-between state, that would be your house rule. (Or you could use Malhavoc's Book of Hallowed Might, which has such a system, providing for half damage in borderline conditions)

Equally, what if one society defines an act as Evil, yet another defines it as Good?

Irrelevant. Alignment is not subjective. That you would even ask such a question reveals what I beleive the fundamental reason that you seem to have with alignment: you have an inherently relativist worldview and cannot put it aside for the sake of the game.

 

[S'mon]

Alignment is not subjective. That you would even ask such a question reveals what I beleive the fundamental reason that you seem to have with alignment: you have an inherently relativist worldview and cannot put it aside for the sake of the game.

I wonder, if we create a D&D society whose definitions of good & evil do not accord with those of the game, how do we handle it? Do we have to discard alignment for the setting? Or just deny to clerics from that society spells based on the good/evil descriptor?

I'm running into this problem because my campaign uses elements of MAR Barker's world Tekumel, originally developed under a D&D-type system but with a very non-JudeaoChristian morality in its Empire of the Petal Throne setting. My biggest problem is with the cult of the deity Ksarul, Doomed Prince of the Blue Room, a god of knowledge and magic. His followers are highly disciplined types, most aspects of the cult can best be classed in the LN/LE area, similar to Wee Jas in Greyhawk (without the Death aspect). However Ksarul is also a 'rebel god', one of the 5 Lords of Change who embody Chaos and oppose the 5 Lords of Stability who embody Law. Stability in EPT is most often associated with Light, Law and Good - even though in EPT these gods regularly receive human sacrifices. Likewise Change is associated with Darkness and Evil, even though Ksarul doesn't seem particularly malevolent - some of his 'foes' seem rather nastier!

Trying to combine this ethos - not particularly complex or unusual by real-world standards, look at Milton's Lucifer (Lawful Evil or Chaotic?) - with the 3e PHB insistence that "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts. They are forces that define the cosmos" seems impossible to me.

 

[Psion]

I wonder, if we create a D&D society whose definitions of good & evil do not accord with those of the game, how do we handle it? Do we have to discard alignment for the setting? Or just deny to clerics from that society spells based on the good/evil descriptor?

Are you saying "and still keep alignment as a universal rule?"

Taking a look at reality, most societies don't consider their choices wrong or inappropriate. What a strictly lawful society would call "good" might not match the definition of "good" in the game. To clerics in such a society, they may understand their "detect chaos" spell as a "detect evil" from their viewpoint.

That said, the situation you describe sounds like significant factors of cosmology and religion are such that it is really not well served by the alignment system. In such a case, you could do something like discard the alignment spells or create subjective alignments that correspond to the deities' principles, and simply replace detect/smite/whatever [alignment] with d/s/w [heathen].

AFAIAC, the primary purpose of alignment is to ajudicate supernatural effects in the game that have to do with tangible morality. If such tangible morality is not part of your setting, then there is probably not much reason for you to persist in using it.

I would recommend anyone interested to consider arcana unearthed as a resource; it's spell set does not consider any sort of "alignment."

 

[green slime]

Trying to combine this ethos - not particularly complex or unusual by real-world standards, look at Milton's Lucifer (Lawful Evil or Chaotic?) - with the 3e PHB insistence that "Good and Evil are not philosophical concepts. They are forces that define the cosmos" seems impossible to me.

Not having any experience from MAR Barker's world Tekumel, but going from your description I'd be tempted to go with the Five forces of Law being LE-LN and the cult of Ksarul be CN, perhaps even CG...

And then again, there is nothing preventing a cult from proclaiming they are chaotic whilst remaining Lawful... And there is nothing in the alignment scale which prevents people from proclaiming their actions are good whilst performing evil. So while a society may claim to be good, the absolute of views of the "cosmos" may regard them as somewhat...wanting.

This is where you must judge (as DM) what tips the scales in one direction or the other. You can judge that human sacrifice is a necessary, justifiable "evil" of minor consequence, or deem that such horrific practices are inexcusable, and that such a society must surely be evil regardless of whatever else the rulers of such a place attempt to do to mislead the populance to the true purpose of their
actions. Just because the sacrifices are widely accepted, does not mean that they are universally accepted within the society, either.

The importance of correct alignement interpretation doesn't lie in how the game is played by everyone, but rather how it is interpreted in your game, and how well this is understood by your players, so that they can get the most enjoyment out of the game, and avoid unnecessary/unwanted debates.

 

[S'mon]

Are you saying "and still keep alignment as a universal rule?"

Taking a look at reality, most societies don't consider their choices wrong or inappropriate. What a strictly lawful society would call "good" might not match the definition of "good" in the game. To clerics in such a society, they may understand their "detect chaos" spell as a "detect evil" from their viewpoint.

Hmm - thinking about this, then, the natural implication is that a cleric of that society casts what he thinks is a 'detect good' spell, but it actually detects _what that society thinks is good_ - which brings in moral relativism again by the back door! Even if good & evil is in some sense 'real' in the D&D universe - and in the Planescape setting at least, belief shapes reality anyway - that may ultimately be irrelevant to characters within the milieu!

 

[S'mon]

Not having any experience from MAR Barker's world Tekumel, but going from your description I'd be tempted to go with the Five forces of Law being LE-LN and the cult of Ksarul be CN, perhaps even CG...

Well Ksarul isn't exactly benevolent - I don't think any of the Tekumel gods are benevolent as we'd understand it - and he seems no more chaotic in AD&D/3e terms than the LE devils of Hell, say. I come increasingly to the conclusion that while both a Moorcockian law-chaos delineator and a good-evil delineator may individually make sense _in different settings_, the 2-dimensional law-chaos/good-evil matrix of AD&D/3e is inherently unworkable.

 

[rpgHQ]

First off forgive me if my post sounds rambling, I am typing this on the fly as I am thinking on what I have read instead of thinking it all out first before posting, so something I say might not be explained fully as they would be if I sat and thought about my response beforehand.

As to law/chaos, good/evil in d&d I think it is an objective/absolute definition seen through a subjective veiw of Lawful Good as the games defines Lawful Good. Your assumed to be LG for the other definitions of the d&d alignment to make sense.

As for all this talk of societies and the complications of defining them as law/chaos, good/evil, you simply cant do it with the alignment system of d&d.

The basis of an individuals actions and interactions with others is based on survival, unless you add in mental instabilities of course.

Law, chaos, good, evil are all subjective to the individual or group of individuals making up a soceity, and at their root is based on survival.

What one individual sees as good another might see as evil, what one person sees as lawful another might see as chaotic.

Laws, traditions, tabus(sp?) all stem at their root from the attempt of survival.

Sometimes these laws, tradtions and such become so structured and ingrained that they defaet their original intent at survival and actually work against survival. Peoples faith/belief in a set order of things are indoctrinated to it so much that once it becomes a detriment to their survival they can not let go of it, can not see that it no longer will assure their survival, but their faith/belief in that system of order is so strong they continue said system in the belief that it is the means of their survival. Those that realize their own survival is no longer assured under such a system are considered evil or chaotic, rebels or some other negative identifier.

Then you throw iin mental instability, and/or those who wish to control others, whose ideals of survival or not 'natural', and give to those types of people the power to control a society, and add to it the majority of peoples strong belief in the system to insure their survival, and you get further and further from being able to define any society with absolutes, especially absolutes like the alignment system of D&D.

The Roman Republic and all its changes that finally included the plebians was a matter of survival. At first one could assume the patricians saw the plebain attempts gaining a voice in government as 'evil' and 'chaotic' behavior, but at some point their own survival was at stake and what was once consider non-lawful and non-good became that societies lawful good outlook. It became a matter of survival for them. Other societies looking at the Roman Republic mostly saw something evil and non-lawful, a massive chaotic evil beast, it was a threat to their own survival.

Individuals desires 'taint' the survival model.

At its most basic level you have the family or clan/tribe model. Survival is at a basic level and traditions/tabus are centered around those basic needs and are 'simplistic' when viewed from our modern viewpoint. If one can not adapt their culture/tradtions then you can not insure your survival. A family unit or tribe/clan able to fluidly change ones belifes/tradtions is able to survive, those who cant die off. Too much structure in a changing environment will not allow for survival. If your environement is very stable then structure is able to form and solidify and grow. However at some point the environement will change and maintaining a set strucuture of law/belief must be changed or there is no survival. If you are able to control the environement, your surroundings, if oyu are able to enforce or force to submit that around you to your societies structre then change is not needed, you have forced that around you to conform to your viewpoint and thus insure(should I be saying ensure instead of insure?) your survival. Thats what war is all about on its most basic level, without throwing in the dreaded mental stability issues of those in control of a society.

The fall of every society and people is a matter of their inability to survive, be it natural forces of nature, or their neighbors come knocking.

I dont see how law, chaos, evil, and good have anything to do with a society.

There will always be one group of people looking at another and saying their evil, or their non-lawful(chaotic), while stating they themselves as being whole heartedly lawful and good people.

Even societies with class/caste systems boils down to a matter of survival. Survival of one group of people over that of another. And survival of those within such societies meant accepting the system or trying to change it from within.

I pointedly refrain from using specifics of religion or government types to try and keep things without heated arguement. They both are included when i say beliefs, tradtitions, tabus and so forth.

But if you look at any society/culture throughout history, it all boils down to a matter of survival in what those groups did or did not do. Societies or cultures unable to change do not survive unless they are able to wipe out the threat to their society or culture.

Cultures/beliefs spread past political borders as a means of a people insuring their survival, it doesnt matter what happens to such and such country or its government, the people and their survival will be maintained.

Order, chaos, evil good is a matter of looking from the inside out or the outside in.

Without trying to offend or anger anyone an example would be Hitler. The majority of the world saw him as Evil. Why? He wasnt doing anything any other country or leader wasnt doing or had done in the past. He was evil because he threatened the other nations survival. The genocide of people? That has been done since the begining of mankind, the survival of one group over another. The US was just winding down from almost completely wiping out the native americans. It jusst happened over a longer time frame but included many millions more than Hitler murdered. Medical operations on people without their consent? At that point in US history most mental patients and most people in orphanages where sterilized to keep the 'undesireables from breeding', among many other things they did to people in asylums int he pursuit of medical knowledge and the benifit of mankind. It was only after the medical experiments the Third Riech conducted was used as propoganda to stir the war effort agains them and after the war when the totallity of what the thrid riech had done that such things slowed down or stoppped in the US. Those things wernt considered evil until an outside entity that threatened their survival was found to do the same things and those things tossed about to dehumanize the enemy.

From our modern viewpoint those things are all evil acts, they infringe on the individuals rights and freedom. But at the time the majority of folks didnt see it that way. Why? Because it insured their survival.

The Trail of Tears wasnt named that by the indians forced to leave their land in the east and walk all the way to the rocky mountains. The newspapers of the time coined that phrase. The cherokee nation was officially recgonized as a soverign nation by the us government, but a man who hated indians so much that it was a mental instability waged war on them and forced them into that march. The people of the US accepted it becuase it was our government doing it and we had survived so far right? So the government must know what its doing. The indoctrination into a set structre of belief. Only once the march began and the mass death and inhumanity of the situation sunk in did people realize it was wrong. Watching folks starving as they were marched across the country, refusing to leave their dead behind, carrying them along with them while they slowly died themselves. People were ashamed of it, but by the time most folks realized the evil in it there was no way to reverse the act, so they let their shame be hid way out west where they wouldnt have to see it. That was an obvious evil done within a society. It served no purpose towards their own survival. The cherokee nation was not a threat to anyone, they were a peaceful people and the US form of governemnt was actually based partly on several eastern indian nations form of government, upholding some of the same principles of human rights. After the fact congress repealed the congressional orders that recgonized that indian nation, just another part of hiding the shame of what was done. An evil act committed within the bounds of a peoples beliefs. And allowed because their beliefs and laws was too structured and too ingrained/indoctrinated into them, that the act was originally seen as an act of survival. But once they were able to see that their beleifs and laws were too structured they saw what was at first a good and lawful act as something evil and chaotic(chaotic as in without reason or logic to it). And for them to survive their knowledge of what they did to another people they hid it from themselves. They had to had it and somehow justify what they did in order to survive.

Whats my point about the trail of tears? You can only define such things as good, evil, chaos(or should we say anarchy?), order from a subjective viewpoint.


Going on to fantasy examples, people are talking about Drow and such as an example of chaotic society. Drow society is very structured and rigid in its so called chaotic behavior. Nothing is random, there is purpose and meaning behind the power struggles. There are laws and traditions at every step of the murdering, backstabbing way of that society. The society as a whole by d&d definitions is lawful at the extreme. The society would be considered Lawful Evil, yet the drow people are classified as chaotic evil. By the very terms of alignment giving in d&d it contridicts itself for such a group of people.

That society is anhilistic(thats the right word to use here right?), theres no way it should be able to sustain itself if it was nothing but chaotic in d&d terms. There has to be some form of structure and order and law to it for survival to take place. Theres no way for such a group of people to survive without laws/order and beliefs in place. From the inside theres nothing chaotic or evil about the way life is. You do certain things within certain boundries to survive as an individual, which in this case means power and influance over others. From the outside the so called average person cant fathom such a people or mentality, it is chaotic and evil to the core. But thats far from the case, as without some form of order no such society would last.

I rather wished I had sat and worked out what I was going to say beforehand instead of typing it out as I thought it over this threads postings. Maybe I could have explained it better, hopefully I explained my viewpoint on the things being discussed in this thread.



To me the alignments in d&d are only absolutes if you view them from the viewpoint of Lawful good as defined within the game, and once you do that then you can easily define a society as a whole having a certain alignment when the majority of the people within it have an alignment opposite. You have to have the absolute that all societies by definition must be lawful, whatever their good, evil, or neutral tendacies are. Without lawfulness there can be no society, there are only individuals sharing the same space, without any shared belief or traditions.

Once you define in game terms that all societies are lawful, only then can you say or give examples of societies with peoples who are chaotic as defined by the game.

Thus elves are chaotic creatures. Any nation or tribe/clan that regards individuals rights and freedoms formost are chaotic. Gypsies and many other nomadic people would be chaotic.

So I guess this long ramble boils down to this for me:

As long as you define within the game all societes/governments having to be lawful at their core, irregardless of the alignments, culture, religion of the races/people within such a society, you can still use the alignment system of d&d. Allowing you to Keep everything in the game that uses alignment descriptor tags to work.

Otherwise it wont work and you just keep going around in circles.

Myself I use the alignment system as a guideline, something to give a general ideal of a creature, or group of creatures morals/ethics. Something the players can look at and decide how their characters might act or react in a giving situation, how I might have the NPC's act or react. What the general attitude of a nation or city or section of town might be. The spells and such that are based on alignment to work only work on outsiders who for the most part have an extreme view of law, chaos, evil, good. Undead too of course. But magical beasts, aberrations and the like are not effected by such spells or abilites. Protection from Evil doesnt do anything if your facing a red dragon or drow for instance.

I do like the ideals some others voiced who have dropped the alignment system all togather and have spells that effect people of different beliefs/faiths of the caster. I think I will include that into my games as well, though the alignment tagged spells and abilities will still remain too.

Anyhow I hope this wasnt too rambling and even though long it hopefully shows my viewpoint clearly.

There really is no way to use aligment to define a society or culture. It all boils down to survival on how a society or culture defines evil, good, law, chaos on a basic level, and even then its a matter of degrees becuase of ingraining/indoctrination of a people. A society might do something the majority of the people think is evil or chaotic becuase they are unable to adapt, and such societies eventually fall if they are unable to reconcil(sp?) themselves with said actions or even change so that what they once thought as evil becomes good.

The Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and Holy Roman Empire are examples of that, but I have spent longer than I wanted on this and hopefully there isnt a need to explain on that further, besides which once you get into the holy roman empire that leads to the catholic church and thats one flame war I wish to avoid when talking about survival and the inherent talk of good, evil and adapting oneself to others or destroying the others that goes along with it

 

[S'mon]

As to law/chaos, good/evil in d&d I think it is an objective/absolute definition seen through a subjective veiw of Lawful Good as the games defines Lawful Good. Your assumed to be LG for the other definitions of the d&d alignment to make sense.

Hm, good point. In 1e original AD&D this would almost be unarguable, it's a bit muddied by now but I think your point stands.

And interesting ramble.

 

[fusangite]

A real problem lurking behind the sheer ridiculousness of the two-axis alignment of D&D is that, in the minds of the writers and most players, good=modern. If you behave like a modern person, you are being good. For those of us who try to make alignment work in other cultural settings, alignment is a real millstone. One has to work to make it culturally relative and such efforts are only successful to a limited degree because all creatures, irrespective of the culture in which they are situated, objectively have one of nine alignments; it is this reality that causes some to (accurately in my view) to label D&D alignment as objective, rather than subjective.