Lawful Good Tyranny - How would this look?

[Celebrim]

The idea is not to come up with a society that can only be LG, but to come up with one that is.

Yes, but is it? I don't see alot of evidence for the assertion. I would assess it as probably lawful, likely LN, with a slight tendency toward evil.

Don't apologize for the length of the post. I have one of the highest kilobyte to post ratios at EnWorld. I'm nothing if not wordy.

There is alot of internal evidence for that in what you provided - alot more than what you initially provided that provides evidence of good. To put it in your terms, there is alot more evidence of a well oiled military machine than there is that this is any sort of beacon of light and goodness. You in fact say this yourself:

a militaristic theocracy....Their life is hard, and they have to work from sunrise to sun-down to build and produce with sufficient output to keep the kingdom's armies and agents equipped...These planners and leaders make a virtue of Disinterest, a dispasionate, logical view of events that allow them to remain unbiased, and make the best decision possible. Only in this way has the military and the knighthood been able to beat back forces many times it's own size, only in this way have the serfs been traned in the the most optimal and efficient methods. The leaders of the kingdom must operate from a position of pure logic and strategic acuity. Compassion is a privilege that would only cloud their jugement....The holy people of the Kingdom spend their lives in rapture, or torment, depending on how you see it. They can't afford to heal the sick...for only those of deep an abiding faith can endure the rigorous stress, pain, and sanity-shredding supernatural exposure that touches them in their every waking hour. The life of a terrestrial, flesh and blood creature is a privilege they can never know- their lives are spent in pain, blinding light, and endless prayers...Who's want to live in a place like that?

Is it a description of a good kingdom, or of the structure of a Duchy of Hell? If we can ask, "Who wants to live in a place like that?", one thing it isn't is a beacon. Compassion not being something that leader's can afford could be said by Asmodeus himself, and a dispassionate demeanor is the very soul of lawful neutral conduct. That pain and rapture are intimately connected and indistinguishable is something that the devils might argue for. A deity that demands of his clergy endless stress, pain, and sanity shredding rigor - but does not demand that they heal the sick and less fortunate - does not sound like a lawful good deity to me. That society must be organized in such a way to maximize military prowess at the expense of any benevolence in society, and that its members must be effectually dismembered and disfigured to something less than whole humans so as to be better components for the machine, describes to me LE's outlook better than perhaps anything could.

Simply put, I find it impossible to call any society that sees its people as machines - as things - 'Good'.

You say, "Perhaps they have a point.", and perhaps they do. Perhaps LE is correct - that only by organizing a society such can you maximize its strength and capacity to work its will and any society not so organized is doomed to lose its identity to some society which is. But I think that if we are just with the outlooks, we ought to be able to make an argument that caused every one of the nine moral outlooks to seem reasonable and to construct the society in such a way that we were sympathatic to it. Afterall, if there wasn't something attractive about all of them - even the evil ones - then who would follow them? I mean one of the interesting questions you can ask with this sort of alignment play is, "Who is right?", rather than merely "Who is Good?"

In this case, I just don't think they plumb as good. There is too much evidence that they've comprimised enough with the need to survive ('dishonor before death') that they are LN at best.

 

[kenmarable]

I don't think it's been mentioned, but reading some of these it occurred to me that another example could be the city of Ba Sing Se in Avatar: The Last Airbender. Just to be kind, spoilers for late in Season 2 of the show (and I ramble a lot):

[sblock]
We could argue in circles about whether Ba Sing Se actually is a LG society in the show (at least early on), but it could be used as a model for a LG tyranny at least.

The entire nation is being slowly conquered, but the capital is behind a wall so massive that it has never been breached. So they presume that no matter what happens to the rest of the nation, they will be safe in the city. Add in an easily manipulated king, and you have a situation where the head of the court - Long Feng (I forget his exact title, possibly Minister of Information or some such) is a power behind the throne that seeks to protect the people from fear of the war. In fact, "the war does not exist in Ba Sing Se". All talk of it is banned, new arrivals and other outsiders are constantly watched and escorted everywhere. And this is all done to protect the citizens from panic. Believing that the city is safe no matter what, and that the invading fire Nation really can't be stopped from conquering the rest of the Earth Kingdom it is best to let the citizens of the city live in blissful ignorance.

Those who question the truth or act out are "disappeared" to Lake Laogai where they are brainwashed. All of the "guides" are also brainwashed. Just to accentuate the strangeness, in the show the characters are assigned the guide named Ju Di who has a fake smile and vacant stare who utterly believes all the lies about there being no war and the city is wonderful. After she fails to keep them in line, she is taken away and the next day someone completely different arrives, introduces herself as Ju Di and says she was their guide all along.

It's a good example of when leaders with good intentions become paranoid and believe only they can be trusted with dark secrets, it is easy to become a tyranny in order to "protect the citizens from themselves". It's clear that Long Feng isn't LG by the end of his appearance, and it's doubtful if he was even when they first meet him. But I could easily see him once upon a time being LG and honestly believing that he was doing what was best for the people.
[/sblock]

 

[Ferret]

Taking form that same article, looking under culture, it doesn't seem to neutral or evil, besides the part about the slums, but government pay outs could help them survive there. Though I imagine in a LG society people are kept in their castes by propaganda stating they are the the best off.

[sblock]The people of Ba Sing Se value order and stability over freedom. Law and order are maintained under the strictest of police forces to ensure that society does not break down into chaos. The people of Ba Sing Se have a variety of recreational activities available to them including spas, poetry houses, shops, restaurants, and the Ba Sing Se Zoo. Tea-drinking is one of the most common ways citizens relax after work, while strolls around the parks and shops of the Middle Ring are also enjoyed. The University ensures that many upper and middle class families get a higher education (though considering the segregation, it is unlikely that anyone from the Lower Ring could attend it). Earthbenders are highly valued, and operate many civic projects, from the monorail system to the city's gates.

The architecture of Ba Sing Se is slightly different from many other towns seen throughout the series. The majority of the buildings are made of stone, with wood supports and plaster covering the outside. The color of roofing tiles on buildings indicate their prestige and vary by ring - Lower Ring buildings have black or dark green tiles, Middle Ring buildings have vibrant green, and the Upper Ring nobility uses yellow tiles as a sign of class. Earth Kingdom symbols are often placed on gates, government buildings, and military sites. Roads in the Middle and Upper rings are made of flagstones, while the Lower Ring has muddy dirt paths for most of its streets and alleys. The citizens of Ba Sing Se sport considerably more color variation in their clothing than the other locations seen throughout the series - blues, turquoises, browns, and golds can all be seen among the aristocracy, while the lower class usually wears browns and off-whites.

The main characters do not reach Ba Sing Se until "City of Walls and Secrets", where the culture is first revealed. The city is divided into various levels based on social class, with the ghettos of the poor and refugees being walled off from the rest of the town. It is also revealed that society is heavily controlled, and that the war is not allowed to be mentioned inside the walls. This was meant to maintain order and the cultural heritage of the city, making it the only remaining "utopian" society in the world. The Dai Li maintain strict control of the people and the culture, and prefer to pretend the war does not exist. This is most likely the result of Ba Sing Se's safety - the people of the city consider it impenetrable, and thus feel they can delude themselves into pretending all is fine in the rest of the Kingdom. Those who attempt to disrupt this fantasy are promptly brainwashed by the Dai Li into believing that the war doesn't even exist. [/sblock]

 

[Celebrim]

Taking form that same article, looking under culture, it doesn't seem to neutral or evil, besides the part about the slums, but government pay outs could help them survive there. Though I imagine in a LG society people are kept in their castes by propaganda stating they are the the best off.

The thing is, in a truly lawful good society, especially one with magical resources, the most uncomfortable difficulty that we have to face is that that propaganda might well be true.

I would imagine that a LG society would expend quite a bit of effort trying to find what the right place for each member in society was. If I may contrast the two approaches, LE would be trying to remake its individuals over so that they would best serve their place in the society, but LG would be trying to make a place in the society that best served the individuals. Stepping back to look at society as a whole, the ultimate results might be superficially similar (people fulfilling roles that they are suited for), but I think at the level of the individual the two approaches would feel very different.

Or, maybe not. Maybe it would grate on ones spirit (or at least some spirits) all the more that we were being told that we would be happiest as peasant farmers by people who really and sincerely wanted us to be happy, than it would to be forced at penalty of great duress to be peasant farmers for the sake of some greater power. Maybe in the latter case we'd have the solace of our dreams, our hopes, and the feeling that our lot in life was somehow not our fault, and that this might ultimately be more satisfying than knowing our destiny and it not being everything we wanted it to be.

Which returns us to the argument you often hear evil make, that good is actually more stiffling and more cruel than evil is, and that society actually needs someone putting its boot in our faces and needs someone to crush under its heel.

On the other hand, probably if we were put in a position of comfortable slavery, many of us would happily stay there. Maybe those that disparage freedom are actually right, maybe all we really want and what we really require to be happy is someone to take care of us and free us from that responsibility. One of the problems a would be revolutionary in a LG tyranny would probably face is that by and large the peasants would probably be happy and content, and indeed might represent the biggest source of resistance to the idea of change, because they might legitimately see that they - and not the powerful - have the most to lose and the fartherest to fall.

 

[kadnod]

(long time lurker, first time poster. Hi!)

The Superman: Red Son series was a pretty good example of a LG tyranny. Without getting too spoilery, think large and successful "nanny state" ruled by a truly benevolent god who honestly only wanted everyone to be healthy and content.

Personally, I'd make any adventurers in LG-land subject to all sorts of annoying, but semi-practical, safety regulations. Perhaps an NPC cleric of the boss-god would be required to accompany every adventuring party on their dungeon crawls? Not only for healing purposes, but to ensure the PCs don't use any sort of blasphemous or highly dangerous magic, and to confiscate any loot they uncover that could be considered a holy or historical relic?

"Why, we've just found the Most Holy Blade of Alexis the Pious, founder of the Abbey at Smithton! See how it glows with heavenly might? The church shall forever be in your debt! I'll return this to the Abbey immediately . . . why are you all looking at me like that?!?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Harrison Bergeron anyone?

A lawful Good Tyranny would have two features:

1) It would be doing very little if anything which you could morally object to.
2) It would leave its citizens very little if any personal freedom.

I think to begin with you have to very carefully separate out your feelings about what is 'good', from the chaotic good stance that 'good' begins with personal freedoms. And in particular, I think you have to toss out the impulse to want to demonize moralizers as hypocrits.

There is plenty to skewer LG's types with, without resorting to saying that they are just as bad as LE ones only they are less honest about it. I think we have to recognize that impulse as springing from a world view that is itself characterizable as an alignment. That's the hard part of an alignment discussion. If we let ourselves define 'good' from our own subjective position, then we'll define NG as what we believe and characterize everything else accordingly. If you happen to be (just to pick on them) a libertarian that holds personal freedom as the highest good, you are going to tend to characterize all lawful/social/orderly impulses not designed to promote personal freedom as being the worst of evils.

A lawful good tyranny makes many many many very reasonable laws for the good of its citizens. To put it in modern terms, a lawful good tyranny makes an infinite number of 'motorcycle helmet' laws. A LG tyranny doesn't believe that there is anything like a victimless crime, nor that there is any limit to what the state ought to be able to tell people to do for their own good. If the law promotes goodness and order, that it is onerous and petty doesn't even come into consideration. On one hand, such a state is benevolent and prosperous and just and fair. On the other hand, most of us (not having strong lawful impulses) would find life under such a regime extremely challenging.

Things we'd likely find illegal that would strike us as utterly unreasonable:

1) Sedition: Speaking out against the state would be a crime. And no, the state wouldn't be using this to conceal its hidden nefarious schemes. The LG bureaucrats would be zealous in rooting out corrupt officials. It's more basic than that - you couldn't complain about the fine you recieve for parking a wagon with wheels higher than the king's waist within 12' of the city wall (or whatever other obscure law you'd find yourself breaking) without being suspected of being subversive. You'd be expected at all times to be courteous and cooperative with the authorities, who afterall, really were serving the greater good.
2) Every aspect of your life would be regulated: There would be a tendancy for the government to find reasons why everything should be done a certain way. There would be a tendancy for the law to cover everything. There would be a vanishingly small number of situations which personal choice was considered a valid reason for doing something. So, for example, everyone probably would eat the same thing at every meal, and it would require some sort of waiver to eat a non-government approved meal. Consumption of wine would be illegal except at government approved times. Indeed, consumption of anything not at a government approved time would be illegal. You cooked your meal in bacon fat instead of olive oil, on a thursday - time for a fine and a sit down with a magistrate on how all the food laws were for your own and societies greater good.
3) Taxes would be extremely high: The government would provide just about everything for you, and you would have no reason to buy something (because you have no choices about what to buy anyway) so most of your labor would be turned over to the state for everyone's good. Indeed, technically, you probably wouldn't own anything, but instead were simply borrowing property from the government.
4) Free expression would be frowned upon. Art serves the interests of the state, of glorifying the state, and of glorifying the things the state approves of. Art for art's sake would be suspect. Art which even incidently glorifies the artist, the individual, or something that the state doesn't approve of is probably subversive, and the artist if informed of this would be expected to cheerfully destroy his incidently dangerous works. If you have the slighest individualistic impulse, you'd probably find all artistic expression in such a society to be ultimately very banal and unsatisfying.
5) A fantasy LG society would have absolutely no qualms about squashing free will magically, if doing so prevented evil. Criminals wouldn't merely be killed - which might strike us as harsh but just. Criminals would, depending on the severity of their crime, be magically or surgically lobotomized, dominated, cursed, mind wiped, memores altered, charmed, and otherwise forced to behave morally - all for their own good of course. All of this would of course be undertaken with real and not feigned regret and tenderness toward the criminal.
6) Freedoms in general wouldn't be prized. The general argument would run that freedom isn't valuable or desirable, that what people really need is security, stability, and prosperity. The argument would run that freedom is really illusionary, and that people in free societies aren't really free but that they are predated upon by the powerful and so are less free than they are in the noble LG society. And so, the society would tell you who your friends are, what job you should have, where you should live, and so forth. And the really grating thing is that they really would care for your happiness. You wouldn't be sacrificed as a cog for the greater good. They'd pick the things you liked, that you'd be good at, where you should be happy, but they just wouldn't give you any choice about it or any freedom to find that out for yourself.

Real world examples of anything like this would be very hard to come by at the level of a complete society, because real world people are seldom as moral and honorable as fantasy people. In my opinion, no real society so organized would stay good for long, on the simple grounds that power would rapidly corrupt the powerful however good their initial intentions. In fantasy terms, such a society would be like if Gandalf took the One Ring from Frodo, and set about creating a just society with Gandalf as its all-powerful moral busybody. It might be good for a while, but it would be a very transient good, because Gandalf wouldn't stay good with that power at his command for long.

I also should note that this wouldn't even be considered an idealized society even by LG standards. Most LG's would probably consider this a society turned far too down the road to Lawful Nuetrality with too much law and not enough good.

PS: It should be pretty easy from this to see how to create a CG society and skewer it:

1) It would be doing very little that was morally objectionable.
2) It would do very little or nothing to gaurantee stability, order, security, or prosperity.

 

[Celebrim]

The Superman: Red Son series was a pretty good example of a LG tyranny.

One of my favorite comics.

Why, we've just found the Most Holy Blade of Alexis the Pious, founder of the Abbey at Smithton! See how it glows with heavenly might? The church shall forever be in your debt! I'll return this to the Abbey immediately . . . why are you all looking at me like that?!?

This is a situation that in my opinion does not happen often enough in D&D. Default D&D tends to have this notion of, "If I plunder it, I own it.", that results in on one hand defining the heroes as murderous, theiving, graverobbers, and on the other hand in a world where the PC's have no connections at all to the world's history or people because nothing has a history.

 

[Nifft]

This is a situation that in my opinion does not happen often enough in D&D. Default D&D tends to have this notion of, "If I plunder it, I own it.", that results in on one hand defining the heroes as murderous, theiving, graverobbers, and on the other hand in a world where the PC's have no connections at all to the world's history or people because nothing has a history.

That notion comes from Sword & Sorcery, a genre rather different from High Fantasy. And it has nothing to do with how much history an item has, but rather on what kind of mechanical benefits accrue from owning such an item, vs. what sort of mechanical benefits accrue from gaining favor in the eyes of an organization.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Celebrim]

Harrison Bergeron anyone?

Oh man, I hadn't read that story since the 6th grade. I thought it was intensely cool as a kid. I didn't even realize it was a Kurt Vonnegut.

I would say, "No, Lawful Evil again."

I think that the key point is that the society was effectively crippling its members to have them better fit into the designated role they were supposed to fit into. It's a semi-comic version of say a fantasy culture blinding people to make them more effective scent trackers, or inflicting leperacy on them to make them immune to pain, or any number of sci-fi plots where the evil regime multilates people to create 'super soldiers' (or whatever it is they want). Instead of wanting more powerful members though, and being geared to being more powerful, it wants less powerful members.

It does have this wierd idea of fairness behind it all, but nothing prevents a LE society from being 'fair' or promoting 'equality'.

 

[Jezrael]

I think the a Lawful Good 'tyranny' would look like the Common-wealth of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.

This type of society comes about when a group of people transfer their rights in common to one person, who acts as the sovereign. Hobbes goes on for quite a long time but distills 12 principal rights of the sovereign:

1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
3. the selection of sovereign is (in theory) by majority vote; the minority have agreed to abide by this.
4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects, and cannot be accused of injustice.
5. following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8. to be judge in all cases.
9. to make war and peace as he sees fit; and to command the army.
10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11. to reward with riches and honour; or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
12. to establish laws about honour and a scale of worth.

If you follow Hobbes' chain of logic I think your LG theocratic tyranny would look very much like this. No separation of powers, absolute authority to impose religious doctrine for the good of the state, etc., etc.

The only thing keeping it from being a lawful evil or lawful neutral society would be the tenor of the ruler. The society goes as he goes. If he is a truly pious and good man the society will be lawful good and his laws, no matter how tyrannical seeming will actually be considered just.